Snowden Publishes "A Manifesto For the Truth"

wjcofkc writes "In the turbulent wake of the international uproar spurred by his leaked documents, Mr. Snowden published a letter over the weekend in Der Spiegel titled, "A Manifesto for the Truth". In the letter, Mr. Snowden reflects on the consequences of the information released so far, and their effect on exposing the extent and obscenity of international and domestic surveillance, while continuing to call out the NSA and GCHQ as the worst offenders. He further discusses how the debate should move forward, the intimidation of journalists, and the criminalization of the truth saying, 'Citizens have to fight suppression of information on matters of vital public importance. To tell the truth is not a crime.'"

Comments

First!

[Anonymous Coward]

First.

how long

[Anonymous Coward]

will this stay on this board and not be deleted?

Re:how long

[Runaway1956]

How long? I want to know how long until Snowden is given a medal by congress. He deserves a Gold Medal, at least as much as a Walt Disney, or Roberto Clemente, or a Danny Thomas. Browse the list yourself - some of the people who have been awarded a Gold Medal may have sacrificed more, or done more than Snowden. But Edward stands head and shoulders over a mere sports figure, or a Hollywood icon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Congressional_Gold_Medal_recipients

Re:how long

[Anonymous Coward]

... until girlintraining starts ranting about Snowden?

Re:how long

[Opportunist]

How long? Well, first we have to wait 'til we get a government by the people, for the people. Before something like that happens, no such chance.

Re:how long

[intermodal]

It will be years, long after any current politicians are in office. If ever.

Re:how long

[Runaway1956]

Well - the Doolittle Raiders are still waiting for consideration . . . . .

http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/news/local-military/doolittle-tokyo-raiders-nominated-for-congressiona/nXgmS/

Re:how long

[cold fjord]

How long? I want to know how long until Snowden is given a medal by congress.

Probably 50 years. If he hadn't leaking information about US intelligence operations overseas it might have been 20 years.

Re:how long

[GodfatherofSoul]

Well, Hitler won Man of the Year so anything's possible.

Re:how long

[johnlcallaway]

The only gold medal he deserves is a bag of flour. And only a coupon for one. Snowden hasn't sacrificed jack squat, he is now far more famous than he ever was, has thousands if not millions of groupies, and can probably get paid thousands of dollars for writing a crappy book or for speaking engagements. He probably no longer even as to work. Same holds true for Agassi.


I sure wish there was a volume control so I could turn off all news items that even mention his name. Except the one where he is sent back to the US to face the consequences of his actions.

Re:how long

[johnlcallaway]

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it needs to be changed. You can want it to be changed, but expecting it to be changed to suit you is only your ego talking.

Why don't you run for office and try to make a difference instead of expecting other people to do it....

Re:how long

[anagama]

You're a douche-bag.

I say that with complete objective certainty.

Re:how long

[Digital Vomit]

Why don't you run for office

There are still people out there who think regular folks can run for office and not be instantly destroyed/disqualified by the Establishment?

You can't run as part of one of the two parties in the US if the party doesn't want you (e.g. Stephen Colbert), and you don't get serious media attention unless you belong to one of the two parties (e.g. Jill Stein) -- and even if you do belong to one of the two major parties, you don't really get any serious attention if the handful of people who own the media don't like you (e.g. Ron Paul).

99% of Americans can't just "run" for political office even if they had the time and money to do so. The system has evolved prevent that sort of thing.

Re:how long

[blue trane]

Face the criminal consequences of telling the truth? Go USA!

Re:how long

[sI4shd0rk]

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it needs to be changed.

It's not just because I don't agree with it; it's also because the government is flagrantly violating the constitution.

And naturally, if someone disagrees with the government, of course they're going to think it needs to be changed.

Re:how long

[cavreader]

So you are a constitutional scholar and are absolutely positive the government is in violation? The government has technically covered their collective asses with the FISA and other pertinent laws passed by Congress that were open to public scrutiny at the time they were proposed and signed into law. Just because no one was paying close attention to the fine print does not mean you can suddenly get up in arms about the government breaking the law. You can argue that FISA is ineffective or lacking in oversight but you need to present actual proof of illegality and not just endless rhetoric and hyperbole. Just like all those claiming Bush broke the law by ordering an attack on Iraq. That attack was already legally sound under the terms of the Iraqi surrender agreement in 1991. It falls under that mystical International Law people are always yelling about but never seem to want to enforce. All talk of WMD and other motivations were just political rhetoric for the masses.

Re:how long

[CauseBy]

The Tea Party is a successful anti-establishment movement, therefore you are wrong.

Re:how long

[cheekyjohnson]

So you are a constitutional scholar and are absolutely positive the government is in violation?

I don't know about him, but in my opinion, the fact that they've violated the highest law of the land is absolutely clear to me, and you do not need to be a constitutional scholar to hold this opinion. The constitution was written in English, and anyone can read it and interpret it and form their own conclusions.

I think it's important that people not just mindlessly listen to whatever authority figures (constitutional scholars, in this case) tell them.

The government has technically covered their collective asses with the FISA

General warrants are unconstitutional, even if signed by a judge. Spying on just about people's communications en masse is, to me, a blatant violation of the constitution, and those general warrants aren't going to change my mind.

To me, if this isn't a violation of the constitution, then nothing is.

Re:how long

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it needs to be changed. You can want it to be changed, but expecting it to be changed to suit you is only your ego talking.

Why don't you run for office and try to make a difference instead of expecting other people to do it....

Exactly, he should just stop complaining and just spend the million dollars and win an election. Shut up about your lack of power until you're already in power!

Re:how long

[shutdown -p now]

That illusion only lasts for as long as it takes to look at the list of their biggest backers.

Re:how long

[Anonymous Coward]

How long? I want to know how long until Snowden is given a medal by congress. He deserves a Gold Medal, at least as much as a Walt Disney, or Roberto Clemente, or a Danny Thomas. Browse the list yourself - some of the people who have been awarded a Gold Medal may have sacrificed more, or done more than Snowden. But Edward stands head and shoulders over a mere sports figure, or a Hollywood icon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Congressional_Gold_Medal_recipients

How long until you people stop sucking Snowden's dick so that a serious debate about these issues can be held?

Re:how long

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tea Party was hijacked by the Christian Coalition when the Christian Coalition went out of style with Bush. Now they bitch about not having the freedom to create a religious dictatorship. Sarah Palin suddenly going from the CC to the Tea Party wasn't enough of a clue?

Then the money got into it and now they just function as a whip to keep the party line.

Re:how long

[Anonymous Coward]

"General warrants are unconstitutional"

Warrants are at the heart of the US justice system. Invalid warrants can be executed but they can and are challengeable in criminal proceedings. Just like evidence collected is always challengeable. Laws, such as the Patriot Act, can be challenged in court but you need a real case to be filed. The government has been going out of their way to make sure that does not happen. The most well known case was a college professor in Florida who was charged with violating certain provisions of the Patriot Act and the court dismissed all charges after ruling the PA provisions were unconstitutional and non-enforceable. To my knowledge I have not heard of the government using evidence collected by one of the NSA surveillance programs to prosecute a US citizen. If that were to happen the court would get the opportunity to examine the legality of the method used to collect the evidence. When the government passes laws such as the Patriot Act the law is vetted by in-house Executive and Legislative legal staffs to determine the big picture legality of the proposed law or amendment. But that process only produces a legal opinion that can be invalidated by the Judicial branch when the law or statute is applied. The charges of spying on peoples communications en masse has been widely exaggerated. Do you really think the NSA has the capability to intercept, store, and analyze everyone's e-mail or phone conversation? We are talking about billions of e-mails and phone conversations a day. The collection of call metadata by direct intercept may be ruled as potentially illegal but requesting the information from the service providers with a court order is currently not illegal. There are some active cases where this is issue is being litigated. The information published on the NSA SIGINT programs have resulted in some very inaccurate interpretations of the NSA programs and capabilities. The incorrect conclusions reached by some of those analyzing the information is starting to hide some of the legitimate complaints under review. It is becoming harder by the day to get to the actual truth on the many controversial subjects. Snowden himself injected some patently false information claiming he could tap any phone or e-mail account without going through any oversight. There have also been claims of the government compromising Yahoo and Google data centers that there is no supporting evidence to back up that claim. This claim has resulted in a few retractions from those who published that particular piece of information. Retractions that never seem to be noticed so the misinformation continues to increase. People then build and support arguments on the underlying misinformation.

Re:how long

[CrazyDuke]

Of course telling the truth is illegal in a society that depends on it's members telling themselves lies just to go through life without going ape-shit.

Here's a partial list:
The truth will set you free (as in death, unemployment, homelessness, divorce, etc...)
Hard work pays (minimum wage.)
Intelligence is respected (when it fits our designs.)
Honesty is the best policy (to espouse, just don't practice it.)
The little guy has a chance to make it (provided he has blackmail armor to take the blows.)
Heros are to be praised (to drown them out, then tossed in a closet until they are needed again, assuming they survive in the first place.)
It is better to do things the right way (just make sure it's the boss's "right way.")
We are all equals (unless you are in a position of power.)
The law applies to everyone (except those that make it.)
Justice is blind (to reason.)
True love is out there (just like Santa Claus!)
Love and marriage go together (if you love fights, pissing matches, resource paranoia, monotony, and abstinence.)

And, I really doubt this is limited to the US of A.

Re:how long

[cheekyjohnson]

To my knowledge I have not heard of the government using evidence collected by one of the NSA surveillance programs to prosecute a US citizen.

They probably know that that could prove detrimental to their causes. To keep everything secret, they'll probably try to harass people behind the scenes and try to keep their sources secret.

Do you really think the NSA has the capability to intercept, store, and analyze everyone's e-mail or phone conversation?

They can possibly intercept and store a significant amount of it and keep it around for whenever they want to abuse it. But whether they can or can't is irrelevant; even metadata can be used and abused, and most likely will be if this is allowed to go on.

The collection of call metadata by direct intercept may be ruled as potentially illegal but requesting the information from the service providers with a court order is currently not illegal.

To me, mass collection of metadata, even with a court order, should be considered unconstitutional.

Snowden himself injected some patently false information claiming he could tap any phone or e-mail account without going through any oversight.

The NSA, as an organization, basically has no oversight. Even if they did, I do not believe they should be able to do any of this.

I think there is a reason that people are willing to believe that the government is abusing its powers, even if the claims are sometimes untrue: History.

Re:how long

[Opportunist]

What the hell...

Me wanting "By the people, for the people" is me disagreeing with the system we have? We're at that point already? Then I guess it's worse than even I thought, and I considered me a pessimist. If I need to change the system to get that, I guess we arrived at the fourth box already and I guess I should get off the soapy one. Standing up there only makes you a good target once the fourth box gets cracked open.

As for the second killer argument "don't like the government, run for office". Yeah. Nice one. It's actually kinda cute that you still believe that you could possibly change anything that way. Btw, and I hope I don't kill your inner child now: There's also no St. Nick.

To run for an office in the US (or pretty much anywhere) you need most of all two things, two things I do not have: Money and access to media outlets. The former is actually even optional, but usually a requirement to get the latter. You need people to know you, and the only way this can happen these days is with the media. At first the powers that are feared the internet might tilt that power since now even people without access to the mass media can publish, until they noticed that it doesn't mean jack. The internet is no push medium, unlike TV or newspapers. You have to come and get info, and most people simply don't want to go through that hassle and instead simply take the info that is slammed in their face, i.e. TV. Without, don't bother running for any kind of office.

And no, TV spots alone don't cut it. Simply buying TV time won't do you any good. For an in depth reasoning ask various third party millionaires that tried to run and failed for the simple reason that they were ignored by debates and other non-obvious propaganda means. Because they are the ones that influence voters most, not the "paid for by some idiot group" announcements.

So please, not the "don't like it, run for office" crap. If that worked, the election system would have been changed ages ago.

Re:how long

[Opportunist]

The tea party being anti-establishment. Now that's cute.

Get a clue. Just because something takes on a certain name doesn't make it so. Didn't the various "democratic republics" and "people's republics" that existed between the 1950 and the 1990 teach you anything?

Follow the money trail and tell me that they would come even CLOSE to being anything but corporate shills.

Re: how long

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, the Tea Party is made up of insiders and people with money.

Re: how long

[Anonymous Coward]

You inject your opinion that the government is unable to intercept communications randomly and at will due to the volume of data transferred. Are you serious in your opinion? If so, I am certain you are a very naive person.

Re:how long

[CauseBy]

Yawn. No. The Tea Party has successfully upended the Republican establishment.

Re:how long

[Anonymous Coward]

"To me, mass collection of metadata, even with a court order, should be considered unconstitutional."

You can't just pick and chose which court orders you would prefer. Your call metadata is already in the hands of your service provider for billing purposes. Metadata collected by the GPS navigation services provide even more information on a persons actions. The metadata is also used by contracted 3rd parties for creating analytics on the various communication and cell based systems to gauge how the overall system is performing and determine if anything needs to be done to make the system better. The constitutionality of upholding a persons right to remain silent does not apply in certain cases if the information has already been shared with a 3rd party.

" government is abusing its powers" That's just the thing nobody has provided any evidence of government misuse of the collected data. I am not saying they have not misused the data only that there is currently no proof. The legality of using the collected data is a separate issue from the legality of collecting data in the data in the first place. Whether you agree or not there are formal procedures required to actually access the data collected. Of course formal procedures will not stop a determined and knowledgeable individual from illegally circumventing the formal process. You can take issue with FISA methods and the decisions that are issued by FISA but it is currently a legal process.

"even if the claims are sometimes untrue: History"
Historical knowledge or lack of is being distorted or ignored by people who are more interested in winning an argument than getting to the actual truth.

Re:how long

[cheekyjohnson]

You can't just pick and chose which court orders you would prefer.

Yes, I can. I believe certain court orders to be unconstitutional (from the 4th amendment) and immoral.

Your call metadata is already in the hands of your service provider for billing purposes.

And? I don't want it in the hands of the government, too. That excuse is, to me, absolutely nonsensical; it allows the government to outsource its spying to corporations, and that's not a world I want to live in.

That's just the thing nobody has provided any evidence of government misuse of the collected data.

Even possessing the data shows they've already abused their powers, or at least to me.

but it is currently a legal process.

Legal, but not constitutional. A secretive court rubberstamping general warrants is, I think, a recipe for disaster.

Historical knowledge or lack of is being distorted or ignored by people who are more interested in winning an argument than getting to the actual truth.

I can name off numerous acts of abuse and abusive governments. Historical knowledge is not being "distorted"; fools who blindly trust their governments are almost certainly going to find that their governments hardly more trustworthy than all the other ones that abused their powers throughout history. I believe "It can't happen here" is simply an absurd and naive statement; corruption can happen anywhere.

I believe history gives us a glimpse of the future.

Re: how long

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with ya, bud.

in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

...where we currently have a corporate/government cabal, it is, truth actually a crime, actually.

Re:in the U.S.

[TWiTfan]

truth actually a crime, actually

Only if it's truth that embarrasses the government and corporations that rule this country. You're free to tell all the benign truth you wish, citizen. You may also debate the merits of which of the two allowed parties is more worthy of your vote, that of Kang or that of Kodos.

Re:in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

truth actually a crime, actually

Only if it's truth that embarrasses the government and corporations that rule this country. You're free to tell all the benign truth you wish, citizen. You may also debate the merits of which of the two allowed parties is more worthy of your vote, that of Kang or that of Kodos.

I knew it would not be long before the Trufers hopped on this thread.

Re:in the U.S.

[Joce640k]

I especially liked the part where they told him that he did it wrong, that telling the newspapers was bad.

The correct course of action was to call the people in power and let them know they're spying on the population.

Re:in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when did a healthy distrust of the government and corporations make one a truther?

Re:in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they started lying. Which was shortly after communication was developed. Join us. Become truthier.

Re:in the U.S.

[SJHillman]

But would they spy on the call to themselves to let them know they're spying? And would they know they were spying on the call about spying on the call about spying on the call about spying on the call...

This has been another edition of Meta Monday.

Re:in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a turfer then?

Re:in the U.S.

[Kid Zero]

Obama didn't know he was spying on the US, so it might have been news to him. If you believe the media, that is.

Re:in the U.S.

[scarboni888]

Seems more recursive than meta to me. But then of course you don't get the same alliteration effect with that, do you?

Re:in the U.S.

[kmoser]

Yo dawg, I heard you like spying on spies so I spied on your spy so I could spill all your secrets.

Re:in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole notion of Snowden informing his superiors is completely idiotic. What I find appalling is that some sort of two-bit senator has the audacity to suggest that kind of action.

What would the conversation have been like?

-"Dude, you're spying on the people!"
-"Gee, wow, thanks for pointing it out! I'll just go ahead and turn off the global dragnet surveillance apparatus which has taken years and billions to intentionally design and build. Not to mention how much time and effort it takes all the time to operate. I'll just flip the off switch here. Done. It's people like you who give democracy its good name. Thanks again, man."

Well that wasn't very long

[korbulon]

More like a minifesto.

Re:Well that wasn't very long

[Austrian Anarchy]

More like a minifesto.

Actually quite refreshing as manifestos go. For some reason most folk do not remember that the Communist Manifesto was much more that the ten bullet points found at the end of Chapter 2. The later Fascist Manifesto is a long-winded shameless ripoff of the ten bullet points too, but the sections were labeled and points numbered. Somewhere along the way Mr. Snowden did not find the manifesto template that was perfected before him.

Re:Well that wasn't very long

[gmuslera]

The alternative is most people saying "tl;dr", specially here.

Aww.. thats a shame..

[Anonymous Coward]

Manifesto... thats the primary keyword for COMPLETE NUTJOB.

And there went his credibility... Just when he was starting to do some good.

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[TWiTfan]

He's going to be portrayed as a complete nutjob by the American corporations/government and their press lackeys no matter WTF he calls it.

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[Anonymous Coward]

He's going to be portrayed as a complete nutjob by the American corporations/government and their press lackeys no matter WTF he calls it.

There's an excellent reason for that, he is a chucklehead sex addict traitor who sold his country down the river for a ton of publicity, a small portion of it right here on Slashdot.

Oh, the US is such a great country it doesn't need such unseemly tactics as espionage, does it? We just need trust and understanding for our fellow man. Overwhelm the aggressive intentions of Al Qaeda, al Shabab, Hezbollah, Iranians, North Koreans, Chinese, and Russians through kindness and goodwill.

Nutjob.

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[bill_mcgonigle]

wc tells me this 'manifesto' is 273 words.

That's at best an abstract, so using such words doesn't help and reflect poor usage (which surprises me - who added the word 'manifesto' anyway?). Snowden and his supporters should adopt the words that will do his cause the maximum benefit. Though I don't think we know enough to say for sure that he chose this word.

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[Anonymous Coward]

Cold Fjord, please go.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like posting something in favor of gun control on a site lousy with NRA members... you're automatically assumed to be Nancy Pelosi.

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey mods, why is my post considered any more "flamebait" than those of Snowden supporters? I won't say that you can't handle the truth, but it's obvious that you can't handle give and take discussion.

On matters like this, every featured post has to support OUR point of view. Which is quite clearly the only POV held by intelligent, reasonable, thinking people who haven't been brainwashed by the government and large corporations. Like ourselves!

That's what a real forum is about.

- Slashdot

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[Anonymous Coward]

Turfer

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[Sique]

Please look up the meaning of the word "manifesto". It's a public declaration of your own goals and intents. Nowhere there is the requirement of at least 1000 words or seven pages or whatever your threshold seems to be.

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Well, it was a terrible piece of writing that will not convince anyone of anything. He completely ignored the justifications that the government is giving for the surveillance programs, didn't even seek to address the concerns of those that believe that some espionage is appropriate under some circumstances. He's done this amazing revelation of these programs, and he has a global audience for his message... and he has nothing noteworthy to say...

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[bill_mcgonigle]

Please look up the meaning of the word "manifesto".

Why do people cite narrow dictionary definitions and ignore actual usage while treating any narrow reading of a dictionary entry as definitive? Here's a list of notable political manifestos - most of them are several pages, if not entire books.

"Statement of principles" or "mission statements" are the kinds of words used to describe short declarations of goals.

Then again, using "manifesto" has gotten Snowden a bunch of press today, so perhaps he is the wiser.

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[Sique]

There is nothing wrong in calling a manifesto a manifesto. I don't know why your very personal understanding of "manifesto" as "somewhat lengthy elaboration of goals" shall in any way overshadow the generally accepted usage of "manifesto" (without the lengthy part).

Snowden's writing is a manifesto. It has all the required elements. So I'll continue calling it such.

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[Anonymous Coward]

Manifesto... thats the primary keyword for COMPLETE NUTJOB.

And there went his credibility... Just when he was starting to do some good.

Are you calling the founding fathers of the US nut jobs? They wrote a manifesto called the Declaration of Independence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[Agent ME]

Hey mods, why is my post considered any more "flamebait" than those of Snowden supporters?

Both sides of any discussion aren't automatically equal. What gave you that idea?

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[heathen_01]

Manifesto... thats the primary keyword for COMPLETE NUTJOB.

And there went his credibility... Just when he was starting to do some good.

Are you calling the founding fathers of the US nut jobs? They wrote a manifesto called the Declaration of Independence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

They were also terrorists and traitors.

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[Anonymous Coward]

Manifesto... thats the primary keyword for COMPLETE NUTJOB.

When you consider that the Federal government has taken to appointing "czars" to various positions, a manifesto seems appropriate...

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[Nyder]

Manifesto... thats the primary keyword for COMPLETE NUTJOB.

And there went his credibility... Just when he was starting to do some good.

Are you calling the founding fathers of the US nut jobs? They wrote a manifesto called the Declaration of Independence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

They were also terrorists and traitors.

And they won, so they got to write the history books saying they were heroes and liberators.

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[shutdown -p now]

"Statement of principles" or "mission statements" are the kinds of words used to describe short declarations of goals.

Yes, and "manifesto" is just another synonym of those.

Re:Aww.. thats a shame..

[shutdown -p now]

If you don't mind me asking, why, exactly, are you concerned with aggressive intentions of al-Shabaab or Hezbollah? al-Shabaab operates in Somalia, and Hezbollah operates in Lebanon and Syria. Last I checked, those are not US states or dependent territories, nor do they border US. When US troops end up being shot at by al-Shabaab, that's because US troops are stationed somewhere outside of their country - i.e. they are on the offensive, rather than defending their homeland. Have you considered that, perhaps, a much cheaper way to deal with aggressive intentions of those organizations is to pull your troops out of the harm's way and focus on your own country? You might find that not only you don't need anywhere near as much paranoia to deal with teh terrorists, but also that your (insane by the standards of any other country) military expenses will also go down considerably... and last I checked, you have a bit of a budget problem?

To which all the U.S. politicians reply...

[TWiTfan]

"Yeah, well here's our manifesto of everyone STFU, IF YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR YOU!!"

Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

Capitalism promotes selfishness.

Selfishness promotes control.

Control of information is a type of control.

Control of the government is another type of control.

So powerful people will control both.

And so the modern role of signals intelligence: to watch you, to separate the majority who are of no consequence, from the minority who run a serious risk of making a difference.

The solution is a scaling back of capitalism. And not a replacement with Soviet state capitalism, either, even though their surveillance had nothing on modern UKUSA.

Re:Capitalism.

[MickyTheIdiot]

The problem in the US is that the debate is controlled by idiots... and calling them idiots is being nice.

Every debate we have in the US right now becomes a false dilemma. "Scaling back" capitalism, or doing anything that falls in the middle ground between socialism and capitalism, simply gets a person labeled a "communist" or worse. So we can't have debates.

Our last two presidential cycles should have included debates about corporate power but they didn't. This is because we have a certain group of people controlling the agenda.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying that less freedom is the solution to governments stealing our freedom?

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

"Capitalism" and "freedom" are not synonymous, no matter what Ayn tells you.

Capitalism is an ideal, some elements of which may promote freedom in any given society.

Re:Capitalism.

[MickyTheIdiot]

It seems to me unfettered capitalism is pretty much a recipe to *reduce* freedom. Eventually you have a poor class that doesn't have the freedom to do anything at all and a rich class that can do anything. That ends up being a net loss.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

I would agree entirely. This is why the capitalism qua religion which has emerged since Reagan+Thatcher is so dangerous (and why China is laughing so so loudly).

Re:Capitalism.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Eventually you have a poor class that doesn't have the freedom to do anything at all and a rich class that can do anything.

Actually that's the empirical result of the current fascist policies in the US. Of course, authoritarian socialists call this 'capitalism' to try to re-frame the debate as one between fascism and socialism, but since fascism is a flavor of socialism, socialism actually has the burden of proof vs. capitalism.

Let's try doing away with corporations first, and then we can have the debate about which is working better. I suspect capitalism will win, but it will always fail if governments pick the winners and losers, because that destroys the basis of capitalism, which is information flow based on money. From an information theory perspective, socialism has several bottlenecks that will always result in a sub-optimal solution, but so does fascism.

And that's just the utilitarian perspective, for those who wholly discount freedom and are indifferent to violence. Since the socialists/fascists have taken control of the money supply, minimum wage has fallen from an inflation-adjusted $22/hr to $7 per hour (in 2013 dollars), so they have quite a lot to answer for if they want to claim superiority on class distinctions.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

but since fascism is a flavor of socialism, socialism actually has the burden of proof

Since eggs should be opened at the little end, big-endians actually have the burden of proof.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't come up with a real response, so you resorted to ridicule. How typical.

Re:Capitalism.

[theshowmecanuck]

I know... we should adopt German style socialism! Wait a minute. No, never mind, scratch that.

Re:Capitalism.

[Hillgiant]

We casually accept tyranny from our employer that we would never accept from our government. And in this economy, it is not practical to abandon an employer over our rights because (a) other employers are just as bad, and (b) they ain't hiring.

Re: Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you weight freedom by dollars instead of by people.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

Illustrating how the opponent's argument is unsound is a real response.

Next time, should I write more than I need to?

Re:Capitalism.

[cyber-vandal]

Information is only useful if you can understand it. For example how do I know that medicine is safe to take. I am unable to test it for myself, not being a biochemist. I have to rely on the corporation not to cut corners and the government organisation not to miss things. Information flow means nothing in a situation where you would need to be a chemist to decide what's safe for you to take, a financial expert to decide whether a particular bank was a safe place to keep your money, a mechanical engineer to decide whether a car was safe ad nauseum. I have no choice but to rely on the government for many things, because I am unable to get the required expertise to be completely self-reliant.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

mod up

Re:Capitalism.

[Opportunist]

There are no debates in the US, at least not in public. A debate is by definition a battle of wits between two (or more) people where one presents a theory, the other(s) present counter arguments and during debate and discussion the parties approach each other with the goal that, in the end, a consensus can be achieved, or at least a modus vivendi, a formulation that both can somehow agree with or at least accept as a common ground.

That is exactly what is NOT wanted in a "debate" in the US, especially when it comes to political discussions. Quite the opposite, political debates are painstakingly looking for the minimal differences the two parties might have to uphold the illusion that they don't in fact agree on every halfway important topic, trying to shift the focus on point- and meaningless side topics that we "may" disagree at because, frankly, nobody gives a shit about them. A standard issue political "debate" in the US would be kinda dull since only the first one to speak gets to speak, with the second one not able to add anything but "well, I agree" to the fold.

That's no two party system, that's a one party system with two slightly diverging wings.

Re:Capitalism.

[jhol13]

Practical capitalism without fascism is as easy as practical communism without fascism.
In essense, capitalist believes "free market" or competition is best, communist believes a bunch of smart people, i.e. government, deciding for everybody is best and fascist believes an oligarchy he is in is best. All of them are horribly wrong, of course.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

It is beautiful to watch the above post go from +2 to +5 then right down again as the European mods are replaced by the Americans, who are just getting into work and demonstrating their fealty to mammon by logging onto Slashdot.

That (-1, Disagree) is there so you can express your opinion by buying other people's, so make sure to use it!

Re:Capitalism.

[Opportunist]

Well, doing away corporations won't work out in the end, since they're pretty much the only way you can sensibly compete in today's world. If you outlaw them and the rest of the world doesn't, you may rest assured that your economy crumbles within moments.

Instead, I think it's time for another era of enlightenment. The first one gave us the separation of state and church (despite every effort to revert that in the recent years in the US, it's still true in most of the developed countries). The next one should give us the separation of state and economy.

Communism is when the state controls the economy. Capitalism is the opposite. And neither is very appealing.

Re:Capitalism.

[Opportunist]

Well, if you plan to use FRG as it existed between, say, 1950 and 1990 as the model, I could actually agree.

Re:Capitalism.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Capitalism will fall out naturally from freedom. You would have to actively stop it...if that's what you wanted to do for some reason, in spite of its unparalleled success in raising wealth and health for the general population.

Re:Capitalism.

[JaredOfEuropa]

That logic makes about as much sense as a typical "discussion" at an Occupy rally. The surveillance state problem does not spring from capitalism, nor is socialism or any other -ism a panacea against it. Switching one -ism for another will only result in a different set of powerful people pulling the strings.

The solution is a government of integrity, small of scale but powerful where they need to be. That does not necessarily mean scaling back capitalism, but it does mean eradicating the undue influence that corporations and rich individuals exert on our politicians. In other words, a government for the people.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

Social democracy is quite beautiful.

National socialism was as socialist between 1933 and 1945 as the Southern US states were capitalist between 1779 and the 1960s.

Re:Capitalism.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Well, doing away corporations won't work out in the end ... the next one should give us the separation of state and economy.

How do you square these two claims? Corporations are creations of a government.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

It's been a balance of various inputs which has achieved "unparalleled success in raising wealth and health for the general population".

This is why we're regressing. We're no longer trying to achieve any sort of balance.

As for what "falls out naturally from freedom", I don't want anything to fall FROM freedom, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

So the problem is too much power, but the solution definitely isn't to do something about the cause of that power (because that would be anathema?). Gotcha.

Re:Capitalism.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Since eggs should be opened at the little end, big-endians actually have the burden of proof.

There's no question begging here - see the linked textbook definition of fascism I bothered to include in my comment.

Re:Capitalism.

[JaredOfEuropa]

I suppose it depends on how you define capitalism and the scaling back thereof. "Capitalism" is too broad a term to be named root cause for these political issues. "Scaling back capitalism" can mean any and all of thousands of things. What exactly are you proposing?

Re:Capitalism.

[bill_mcgonigle]

For example how do I know that medicine is safe to take. I am unable to test it for myself, not being a biochemist.

Do you do an EE analysis on the electrical products you buy, or do you look for the UL (Underwriters Laboratories) sticker? Drugs are an interesting example here because the FDA has crowded out any private provider, where it's hard to compete against "free", especially when "private non-profit" is illegal.

a mechanical engineer to decide whether a car was safe

So you don't go by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash test ratings? Consumer Reports even includes their data and adds additional criteria like comfort and maintenance ratings.

I have no choice but to rely on the government for many things, because I am unable to get the required expertise to be completely self-reliant.

Have you ever checked on whether a doctor was board certified, whether a bike helmet was ANSI or Snell rated, or whether a manufacturing company was ISO9001?

The only time you don't have a choice is when the government has come in to take over an industry. Ask the organic food folks, where the third party certifying organizations have been driven out of business by the feds, who allow non-organic material in foods that are allowed to be labeled as "organic" by them (but were not by the independent parties).

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

see the linked textbook definition

You linked to a definition according to a writer for Liberty Fund, Inc., a libertarian propaganda group.

You're welcome to disagree with me, but there's no need to be so intellectually dishonest.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

As is private property.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

Oh god, it's the objectivist "competing safety standards" argument.

Because if one doctor/electrical appliance kills you, you can just go to another provider/supplier next time.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's try doing away with corporations first, and then we can have the debate about which is working better.

"I think the system I advocate is better than the system you advocate, but let's (have you help me) change the system towards what I advocate before we debate if my system is better"

Re:Capitalism.

[aristotle-dude]

Capitalism promotes selfishness.

Selfishness promotes control.

Control of information is a type of control.

Control of the government is another type of control.

So powerful people will control both.

And so the modern role of signals intelligence: to watch you, to separate the majority who are of no consequence, from the minority who run a serious risk of making a difference.

The solution is a scaling back of capitalism. And not a replacement with Soviet state capitalism, either, even though their surveillance had nothing on modern UKUSA.

Bullshit. Human nature is selfish. Capitalism merely recognizes the natural reward response of human beings. Socialism is another form of control and is caused by envy of the success of others.

The socialist societies of the world tend to have the tightest social controls as well. For example, in Norway, you have to get the name of your child approved by the government. The Union of SOCIALIST Soviet Republics aka USSR was locked up tight.

Socialism fails because it ignores what drives people to strive and succeed and try to force social equality upon people instead of allowing people to "share" out of a sense of charity and brotherhood.

Re:Capitalism.

[cyber-vandal]

And if there isn't such an organisation or it is completely untrustworthy?

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

Soooo, you're promoting capitalism on the basis that (as you see it) it allows humans to express the trait of selfishness.

But you're criticising socialism on the basis that (as you see it) it allows humans to express the trait of envy.

I'm not trying to sell you socialism, but catering to the "natural reward response" is much stronger in socialism, which is summarised by:
- Worker control of the means of production;
or, equivalently
- To each according to his contribution.

Capitalism is about accumulation and investment of capital, and (in its modern form) creating a limited liability company so you can socialise your losses.

Re:Capitalism.

[Andrewkov]

A debate is by definition a battle of wits between two (or more) people where one presents a theory...

No it isn't!

Re:Capitalism.

[Ronin Developer]

They day the Supreme Court ruled that Corporations had the same rights as Citizens yet not be held accountable (unless you are an officer of the Corporation) tells you everything you need to know about who holds the power in this country.

Corporations were once just legal entities. Now, they have the same rights as citizens. Keep in mind, many corporations are multi-national. And, you wonder why there there is no accountability and people don't trust the government?

We, as citizens, are merely subservient to our corporate overlords. This isn't about Obama or Bush - it's about greed and power. I, for one, do not welcome my new masters.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would agree entirely. This is why the capitalism qua religion which has emerged since Reagan+Thatcher is so dangerous (and why China is laughing so so loudly).

China, as in the one where the vast majority of people live well below the poverty level and die in their 40s. Or the China were the new working class are treated like near-slaves and forced to live in the factories? Perhaps you mean the China where they can't even go outside in the cities due to the worst air pollution ever recorded? Then again, could be the China where you are not allowed to see information from outside your borders and will be sent to prison if caught doing so.

Yup, China really pissing themselves. Prick!

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Practical capitalism without fascism is as easy as practical communism without fascism.
In essense, capitalist believes "free market" or competition is best, communist believes a bunch of smart people, i.e. government, deciding for everybody is best and fascist believes an oligarchy he is in is best. All of them are horribly wrong, of course.

Actually, capitalism believes that pooling assets in the pursuit of profit is best. Whether the market is free or not is immaterial as long as the desired results are obtained.

We have conflated capitalism with general business because for the last century the most successful businesses have all been capital-based. But there are other ways of doing business just as there are other markets to do business in.

Re:Capitalism.

[RabidReindeer]

Well, doing away corporations won't work out in the end ... the next one should give us the separation of state and economy.

How do you square these two claims? Corporations are creations of a government.

No. Corporations create themselves. They're chartered by government. That's how a business operating out of Georgia can be a "Delaware Corporation".

A corporation is supposed to operate in support of the goals stated in its charter. Which may or may not include making a profit, and often are made fuzzy enough to encompass almost any imaginable activity. It is the chartering government's responsibility to determine that the corporation operates within the confines of its charter. It is also the responsibility of government to regulate commerce within and between other states and nations. Said regulation mostly operates regardless of whether the commerce is conducted by publicly-traded corporations, privately-held corporations, sole proprietorships, partnerships, or whatever. Not all businesses are corporations. In fact, some of the biggest and best-known of all are not corporations, or are at most privately incorporated within a family.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

When you see a history book and it talks about "America does this..." "Germany does that..." do you angrily write to the author that actually they're talking about the respective countries' governments?

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Human nature is selfish. Capitalism merely recognizes the natural reward response of human beings.

For the vast majority of human history (2.5 million years), humans have lived in what was essentialy communism, tribal structures based on un-selfish cooperation. Social structures based on selfishness emerged only at the dawn of agriculture 10,000 years ago as a result of the need to supervise and control resource surpluses, they had nothing to do with "human nature".

Re:Capitalism.

[gallondr00nk]

I wish we could get away from "isms", and focus on what works and what is counterproductive to a society rather than what flavour of ism it is. Else the debate goes around endlessly with people asserting what a country "is", rather than what it is actually doing.

We should have learned enough by now to know that there isn't a magic something-ism that works wonders economically and socially without any hiccups.

Whatever it is it sure as hell isn't producing favourable outcomes for an awful lot of people.

Re:Capitalism.

[VortexCortex]

It's almost like the Democratic-Republican party was never dissolved...

Re:Capitalism.

[number17]

China, as in the one where the vast majority of people live well below the poverty level and die in their 40s

If the majority of people died in their 40's, I would expect the life expectancy to be around that number.

According to the CIA Factbook it is 74.99 using the 2012 rank. That is 3.63 less than the United States.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Since both numbers are pretty close, an im not a mathematician or native of the US, do most people die in their 40's there?

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would argue that control of information is the ultimate kind of control in which all other forms of control are derived.

Re:Capitalism.

[Camel Pilot]

Right because we know communist countries don't spy or attempt to control its people... someone needs a history lesson.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

'nauseum'? is that a place filled with exhibits of vomit?

Re:Capitalism.

[Quila]

Power promotes selfishness. The states that grant the most power to government promote the most selfishness and the most control on the people. In recent history, socialist/communist states were the epitome of government power.

Re:Capitalism.

[Quila]

Capitalism is the default behavior for a free people, from the 10 year-old who sets up a lemonade stand to be able to afford his favorite toy, on up.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

1. False dichotomy. I'm asking for a balance, not a different extreme;

2. "Communist state" is an oxymoron. Just because the USSR, and then its allies, called themselves that, it doesn't mean they were. I'm not asking for communism, but telling you what it isn't;

3. Socialism is worker control of the means of production. I'm not asking for socialism, but telling you what it isn't.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

In a capitalist nation, it's fairly to gain the use of stuff if you reject capitalism, isn't it?

Anyway, I was a bright, geeky 10 year old. I helped people with their homework and built stuff for others, because... I really loved to share knowledge. I was one of those obnoxious helpful kids, but I never ever asked for money. If you want to give me something, give it to me, and I'll learn from it and make use of it - or I might scavenge from things nobody wants - but I would never trade, as it just seemed, well, childish.

Oh nooooooooo I mustn't have been a slaaaave. Oh wait no I wasn't.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Capitalism" and "freedom" are not synonymous, no matter what Ayn tells you.

Quite correct. In fact, capitalism is diametrically opposed to the free market.

Capitalism's primary strategy is to shut down as much of the free market as they can get away with, to maximize profits. This is usually accomplished using law and politics.

A few quick examples: (1) Using patents to shut down portions of the free market, (2) Paying lawmakers to make it difficult or illegal for an upstart competitor to succeed, (3) Resisting the disclosure of information to consumers so that a customer can no longer make an informed choice.

A free market allows customers to have options. Capitalism demands profits above all else, which in turn demands that customers must not have options, lest the customer make the "wrong choice" and choose a competitor. The free market is a rare, precious thing of fragile balance that can be easily destroyed. Capitalism is the rich, greedy, powerful force that destroys it.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

I mark you as troll, and slashdot changes your score or whatever the fuck it is from 3 to "2 Insightful". Fuck. You. Slashdot.

Re:Capitalism.

[sjames]

You seem not to have paid much attention to Occupy. Surveillance most certainly is a problem coming from a government that has forgotten that it is to represent and serve all of the people.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes yes yes! Please keep arguing semantics about how it's the Other Team in charge. They've messed it all up, and you shouldn't have to take it anymore!

- Lucifer

Re:Capitalism.

[s.petry]

While I'm not surprised based on your other posts here, this is absolutely a false dilemma and appeal to emotion to back your anti-capitalism arguments.

Capitalism does not change a companies accountability for bad products, in fact it increases it naturally without some regulations board. Let me use your appliance example to demonstrate, but the doctor example would be no different.

Company produces a faulty appliance in any economy, what happens? Lets use China and the USA as our examples. In China the producers may face jail time, same as the US 30 years ago. In China, the producers may reward the family of the victim. This also is the same as in the US. That is where the similarities end however. In China if the appliance maker is state run (and they all are) the appliance maker stays in business producing more faulty appliances until they can "fix" the issue. In the USA, and assuming working capitalism, the people would go to a different vendor and buy appliances in addition to seeking legal action.

Capitalism is designed to ensure that a minimum amount of regulations are required for the economy to function. Don't mistake that with removing regulations because it does not.

Capitalism additionally allows for "Standards" to become a commodity. If Standard A fails, a new standard takes it's place. This does not require regulation, only consumer awareness. If ISO 9660 was negligent in some aspect, ISO 9661 steps in to take it's place.

In other words, you are trying to blur or confuse the separation between regulation and standards.

Re:Capitalism.

[gizmo2199]

But don't you see how wonderful freedom is. The point isn't that you have to be a chemist, financial analyst, or a mechanical engineer in order to function in a free society. It's that you're free to be any or all of those things. Of course, in the real world, due to the atomized specialization of labor required to make the modern economy hum, it's ridiculous to expect an individual to posses a PhD in applied science just to function in society. That's what we pay other people to do, and why we need regulations more than ever.

Re:Capitalism.

[Quila]

You can talk theory all you want, but in practice you know how large scale socialism and communism have worked out. Hint: It has always resulted in very bad human rights abuses.

Re:Capitalism.

[fatphil]

> do most people die in their 40's there?

They'd maybe not have had a Reagan, Bushes Sr. and Jr., and a second term of Obama were that to be the case, so perhaps it's something to hope for. However, those with the ambition and drive to become president at 35 might be *even worse*.

Re:Capitalism.

[erikkemperman]

A debate is by definition a battle of wits between two (or more) people where one presents a theory...

No it isn't!

Disagreements are two offices down the hall.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution: incorporate yourself as a limited Liability corp.

Re:Capitalism.

[thunderclap]

Social democracy is quite beautiful.

National socialism was as socialist between 1933 and 1945 as the Southern US states were capitalist between 1779 and the 1960s.

WTF? How about a better example: If is as possible for Social democracy to work as it is for Kim Kardashian to explain how Quantum physics works.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

That was always too lenient for the Chinese and too liberal and strict at the same time for the Soviets. Confusing, isn't it?

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

Thanks for that Powerpoint on your Great New Idea, but I'd rather not be the guy that dies because I bought from a company or chose the doctor which adhered to failed Standard A.

I don't want to wait until people die so that only the businesses with the worst lawyers go bankrupt during the resulting lawsuit. I want businesses not to be allowed to even attempt to sell dangerous stuff, so that the sale of a dangerous product is as rare as possible.

While I'm here, it's dullards like you who are to blame for the joke that begins, "The great thing about standards is..."

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

Your first mistake was marking me as Troll.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

Communism was to blame for Stalinism in the same way that capitalism was to blame for slavery in the Southern States of the USA.

Put another way, if I put on a t-shirt saying CAPITALIST then kill a puppy, it is not correct to conclude that capitalism kills babies.

Re:Capitalism.

[cyber-vandal]

Apparently we don't according to the above poster because industries will regulate themselves. Just like the banks or the food industry wouldn't do things like selling worthless securities or passing horsemeat as beef if there was no-one watching them.

Re:Capitalism.

[BigMike]

So, tax 'em, and deny them any representation?

Re:Capitalism.

[ti1ion]

That's just contradiction!

Re:Capitalism.

[s.petry]

If I remove the fallacy from your post I see a whole one thought, which is that capitalism is a new concept. This is absolutely false. There have been countless books on the subject starting with Adam Smith who is credited with founding the system of Free Market Capitalism.

More appeal to emotion follows, which I'll ignore and of course you have to close with ad hominem lacking any other method of self perceived intellect or knowledge.

If you don't understand the subject matter you are arguing from ignorance. That is not a fallacy, that is a fact that you seem to find unimportant. Kind of like a person trying to argue that geometry is bad without understanding the work of Pythagoras. I wash my hands of your ignorant rantings against something you have no understanding of.

Re:Capitalism.

[CrazyDuke]

Yes, so he has a greater chance of catching you in an error he can use as a red herring.

Re:Capitalism.

[shutdown -p now]

Since fascism isn't a flavor of socialism, your argument is invalid. It wasn't "authoritatian socialists" who created fascism in the first place - the only reason why it came to prominence was because it had the support of big capital in those respective countries, which saw it as a way to protect their capitals against what they saw (probably rightfully so) as inevitable socialist revolutions.

To be more specific, fascism is not socialism because it neither denies private property in general, nor does it change the ownership of capital. You still have capitalists (i.e. people who own property that is categorized as capital - the means of production), and you have workers. Fascists thought to regulate the relations between the two through the state, but not to destroy the capitalist class altogether, and empathically rejected the concept of class conflict and class warfare. Again, if you look at who the members of fascist parties were in Italy and Spain - it was mostly not proletariat.

Re:Capitalism.

[shutdown -p now]

What makes you believe that Southern states weren't capitalist?

Capitalism does not completely preclude slavery, you know. It requires the existence of a large class of free workers who sell their labor for wages, but it is not necessary for every single worker to be free for the system to be capitalist.

Re:Capitalism.

[trev.norris]

This is something I learned in my first year of Economics. There are 5 failures of a free market. One of those being monopolies. Unfortunately the US government seems to enjoy upholding the monopoly because of kickbacks they're given. And it was those same politicians that voted to allow themselves to receive such kickbacks.

One recent excellent case of where the prevention of a monopoly lead to better market diversity and services was AT&T/T-Mobile. I've been really enjoying the results of that decision by paying very little month-to-month.

Capitalism is a free market with minimal but key government intervention. No government intervention is anarchy. Government controlling the corporations is socialism. Corporations controlling the government is... um. Really messed up? Is there even a word that specifies that? But it seems the worst case is where the US is heading. Corporation and government collusion.

Re:Capitalism.

[cavreader]

You do know if corporations are dismantled all the jobs they provide will also go away?

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true right wing authoritarian. One day you will grow up and realize that your fetal position defense of capitalism is a defense of the corporate overlords. In the meantime, kindly let the adults speak of how to fix this situation that you wish to make even worse, even though your confirmation bias will not allow you to understand at the moment.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Half your people in half your states are living on food stamps
How is that not living in poverty?

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

I am tackling capitalism as philosophy rather than economic system - otherwise it couldn't really be compared with national socialism (which was also quite capitalist).

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

Corporations controlling the government is Italian corporatism, or Mussolini's idea of fascism.

When Europeans say "America is fascist" I understand they're not childishly comparing it to Hitler, but to the economic system of Benito Pussolini.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations controlling the government is... um

American exceptionalism

Re:Capitalism.

[crimson tsunami]

the only thing that falls out from freedom is anarchy.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

More appeal to emotion follows

You appear to be dismissing, "One goal of society is to minimise unnecessary deaths," as an "appeal to emotion".

Not smart. Not smart at all.

Re:Capitalism.

[Opportunist]

I feel kinda reminded of Hungary in the 80s (IIRC) where they tried an "experiment" and offered two different lines of party candidates. Sure, both were communists, both were quite in sync on most important topics but they differed just ever so slightly on trivial matters. This is quite similar.

A joke came into existence immediately: A man comes to a shop and wants to buy a vase. He's shown various models, all of them red and blue, but invariably they have holes in the ground and are completely useless. When pointing out that flaw, the clerk says surprised "But sir! You have the free choice!"

Re:Capitalism.

[Quila]

Stalinism is part of communism. Every pro-communist says "But it's never been done right!." Many people have tried, all attempts have been oppressive. Your theory does not match reality.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

After the Russian revolution, every country which has labelled itself "communist" has followed the Soviet model, and none has followed the Marxist model.

Maybe this is annoying if you want an easy card to dimiss anything which has the flavour of "communism", such as the British National Health Service, but that doesn't make it less true.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
In order to have a socialist state, information MUST be centralized. It's part of the project flow. No centralized information? No socialism. The government must know where it can take and where it must give. If information is centralized, so is power
Capitalism is the opposite. Power comes from money and you MUST spend money in order for your power to have any leverage. You cannot build a factory without spending money, and then not pay your workers, or they have no incentive to work for you. You must pass out even a minimal amount of your power in order to keep it. Then, people still have to give you their custom for you to keep your power. To utilize your power, you bleed it out.
Your problem is that you see people abusing what little power their slippery money can hold, while ignoring the absolute power being abused by socialist governments throughout modern history. People will always abuse power, but capitalism allows some measure of obtaining a piece of that power without being born into it -- hence the beauty of the American Way. Cronyism affects capitalism in much smaller ways than it affects government.

Re:Capitalism.

[shutdown -p now]

There's no such thing as "capitalism as philosophy", as many different people ascribe many vastly different things to it. The capitalism of Adam Smith is radically different from the capitalism of Ayn Rand, for example, and is just as much different from the capitalism of Marx.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're confusing free markets with Government Welfare.....

The latter creates a class that is unwilling to do anything. The former provides all equal opportunities. But requires hard work.

Re:Capitalism.

[Quila]

"But we'll get communism right THIS time" has always led to more repression. But it'll work right when YOU do it, right? You are the one who can buck the historical trend. How many have to die before you find out you were wrong, too?

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

So what your'e saying is there is such a thing, but that the detail of the definitions varies - just as with communism as philosophy.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

You're entirely missing the point. Perhaps you are coming into this discussion with some bias - do you follow capitalism as a religion, for example?

To be clear: I'm not trying to get communism right. I'm telling you that communism has always followed the Soviet model, rather than the Marxist model. I'm merely stating history.

Re:Capitalism.

[s.petry]

Nowhere did you make that claim previously, you just invented it on the spot trying to defend your fallacious arguments. You can't provide a counter argument, you respond with lies and fallacy.

It would not be bad if your lies were actually logical, but "One goal of society is to minimize unnecessary deaths" is absolute rubbish. Show me one definition of society that makes that claim. You won't find it from Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Aquinas, the Pope, Marx, nobody!

Now I can see why you are "Joining Yet Again", your first account(s) were poor on Karma.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

I've indicated about three times that I think government regulation is good because it minimises unnecessary deaths.

You obviously missed this, just like you missed that I never argued "capitalism is the problem" (rather "too much capitalism is the problem"), then tilted excitedly at that strawman for pages.

You're just not very bright. Which may explain why your posts suggest a fanatical adherence to an ideal, the hallmark of a lackwit.

And minimising suffering is a common theme of all your Freshman Philosophy name-drops, my IT janitor comrade.

Re:Capitalism.

[Quila]

I'm telling you that communism has always followed the Soviet model

The Khmer Rouge ideology was based on Marxism, aligned with China against the Soviets. Also, Titoism, Maoism and Juche split from Stalinist/Leninist theory.

But the next time someone tries communism, they'll do it right.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

Maoism, Pol Potism and the Juche Idea are all variants of state capitalism as played out by Stalin, and had little to do with Marxism, which requires a progression from capitalism through socialism, and involves the loss of the state.

Titoism was a moderately successful mixture of ideologies.

The application of aspects of communism works fine, say, in the British National Health Service - to which everyone contributes according to ability, and from which everyone may take only according to need. It works fine on the acres of common grazing land behind my partner's family's farm. It would never work applied purely on a large scale - as wouldn't capitalism - because it is an ideal, and ideals are a source of ideas from which we build functioning realities.

Think!

Re:Capitalism.

[trev.norris]

Interesting, thanks.

Re:Capitalism.

[Quila]

requires a progression from capitalism through socialism, and involves the loss of the state.

The state is only necessary as the vanguard to achieve communism. It will go away once all threats to the people have been eliminated and the perfect stateless and classless society achieved. Honest, we promise. Problem is, people are involved in forming this protective temporary government, and those people will get used to the power, and they won't want to relinquish it. We end up with two classes: the government and the slaves.

It works fine on the acres of common grazing land behind my partner's family's farm

Funny, exactly this is what grew to define the "tragedy of the commons." Of course, this concept exists outside of either communism or capitalism, and tragedy brought about by either system can occur.

It would never work applied purely on a large scale - as wouldn't capitalism

If you set up a large-scale government agnostic of economic system, you will end up with capitalism as people go about what is natural to them. Communism must be forced upon the people using excessive state power and oppression.

But we do agree on scale. It can work small-scale because you can get a small number of like-minded people together. As people are born into the system and disagree, or change their minds, they can leave this system. People who agree can join. A free country agnostic of economic system allows this. But you can't find 100 million people who think that way who live in the same place. Too many will leave, and for the country to work, they must be forced to stay. This is why communist countries heavily relied on forbidding most of their citizens from leaving.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, sorry, this is Abuse!

Re:Capitalism.

[redlemming]

To each according to his contribution

It's never worked. There is no reason to suppose it ever will work on the large scale. Somebody has to define how to measure contribution. It can't be done. There are too many people, too many trades, too many skills, too many goods, too many variables, too many potential exchanges, too many dependencies.

Many of the aspects of contribution overlap, and others are hard to measure in their own right. How do you measure leadership and determine the relative worth of it compared to other contributions? If a minor team member finds a fatal flaw in a product that nobody else saw, allowing it to be corrected before it goes out the door, what is their contribution? Is it equal to the contribution of somebody that has spent years of their life designing the thing? Is it worth more? Where do we draw the line? How do we come up with a system that people are willing to accept, given that we have to keep large numbers of people happy with the solution?

What about people skills, how important are they? Most work is done in teams today, but how does one measure the contributions of individual team members? That's a really hard problem, with lots of bad solutions that create more problems than they solve.

The measurement problem -- measurement being the basis of science -- is ultimately one of the hardest aspects of all science. It's particularly difficult in the areas to which the social sciences are applicable. At present, we don't have the tools. It's unlikely we will any time soon.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is not about selfishness. It's about markets expressing supply and demand to provide for the efficient exchange of goods and services whose value can not be measured any other way. The need for exact measurement goes away.

Some regulation of this process is needed, because any group of human beings contain sociopaths who will try to defraud others, or not honor their given word, or will do other things that cause long term harm to the environment or to society. Any system must deal with these people. It's not capitalism that's the problem, it's coming up with better ways to deal with these people.

Over-control is actually a bad thing, because it prevents markets from expressing supply and demand accurately or in a timely manner, causing inefficient or bad decisions to be made.

The selfish person robs others at the point of a weapon, or steals by cooking the books, or engages in cons, or plunders a retirement account. This isn't the norm in capitalism. Most people are decent and honest, and the best deals are those in which both parties walk away satisfied.

If anything, a lot of non-selfish behaviour happens as a result of capitalism. There is a long history of immigrants to capitalist places sending large amounts of money back to their families in their homelands to make life for them better (and that money in turn stimulated the economy in those far away places).

In the case of the USA, the history clearly shows the Irish did this, the Chinese did this, the Japanese did this, the Jews did this, and so forth. We have lots of accounts of people receiving money from their families. Many groups continue to do this. It was capitalism that made this extremely non-selfish behaviour possible, to the long term benefit of the world as a whole.

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

"I can't think of a way to measure contribution precisely, even though there have been loads of effective worker cooperatives across the world, therefore socialism as an ideal does not reward labour."

I'm not sure I understand this belief that capitalism <-> best response to demand with supply. The National Health Service, which is communistic in principle (to each according to need - from each according to ability), supplies the demand for British healthcare more completely and efficiently than the US market supplies the demand for American healthcare. Energy companies, which are capitalist on paper but from a cartel in practice, almost always deliver - albeit inefficiently - the energy needs of the UK. Any dominant private company - e.g. Tesco supermarket in the UK - could continue carefully applying its algorithms to supply food efficiently to consumers, without needing to squeeze its suppliers nor add a mark-up to make a profit for shareholders. Or it could redirect profits to its employee-owners, like the socialistic John Lewis Partnership - but selfishness precludes it.

Trying to redefine selfishness so that it only covers theft is not going to work.

Capitalism incorporates one a method of resource allocation which balances society's needs against the interests of the wealthy. There's nothing particularly great or particularly awful about it. It's not uniquely good, or uniquely bad. Its ideal needs to be considered alongside other methods of resource allocation - as indeed happens already in any healthy country, but fails to happen in a failing one.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you set up a large-scale government agnostic of economic system, you will end up with capitalism as people go about what is natural to them

I think it's hilarious how "communism will work the next time, promise" is a fantasy, and yet here we see an even more outrageous belief.

Hint: while communism has been tried and failed, large-scale government agnostic of economic system has NEVER been tried. Yet here we have a true believer who thinks such a government, if it was ever implemented, would lead to capitalism

Reality: what is natural to people is to form families, a socialist if not communist unit where there's a central planner at the top (the family head, usually the alpha male). Multiple families form tribes and clans, then from there city states and so on and so forth, and that's how government naturally grow.

Government grows naturally because "what is natural" to people is to grow government. It's one reason why the first societies to form in history (before "capitalism" or "communism" were termed), the popular form of government was the one that involved kings and emperors.

Re:Capitalism.

[redlemming]

"I can't think of a way to measure contribution precisely, even though there have been loads of effective worker cooperatives across the world, therefore socialism as an ideal does not reward labour."

The issue is doing this on the large scale. It works fine for many small groups, especially those that are working on fairly simple stuff without a lot of dependencies, or even some particular complex tasks that human beings have thousands of years of experience at (such as small scale farming).

I'm not sure I understand this belief that capitalism best response to demand with supply

Look into the reasons the Soviet Union failed. They tried to determine what needed to be produced, and when it needed to be produced. They couldn't do it. There were huge shortages of many things (except, perhaps, in the stores serving the privileged few, but even those were often inferior to what the average European or American can get in a quick trip to an ordinary store). On the other hand, to complement these shortages, they also ended up with warehouses of other stuff that wasn't being used. Find some of the papers produced by post-Cold War Soviet economists for the details.

The problems of getting different organizations within the Soviet system to work with each other were so hard that many of the organizations built their own spare parts and tools because they couldn't rely on the other groups to produce what they needed, when they needed it. That's very inefficient. They couldn't focus on what they did well, but had to try to be good at everything, which wasn't possible (nobody can be good at everything).

The reason they couldn't do manage production on a collective basis comes from the fact that the economy is vastly more complex than most people realize. Outside of engineering, few people realize how complex the processes are to manufacture many of the things we take for granted every day. Even 1940's technology was a LOT more complex than most people realise: look at a book on wood or metal working with machine tools to get a feel for that (you might also look at the part count for a WW2 fighter, or even a WW1 warship: you'll be surprised!).

Modern technology is even more complex: the physics of small devices is very different than the physics of large devices, for a variety of reasons (such as quantum mechanics, critical to understanding modern semiconductor devices), and the physics of very fast devices (such as cell phones and computers) is different than the physics of slow devices (as speed goes up, lumped models become impractical and one has to use fundamentally different techniques: glance at a "microwave" book if you're interested).

A typical cell phone, for example, is built with at least one custom ASIC, and that will be an enormously complicated piece of technology. A typical ASIC fabrication process takes hundreds of steps and requires a multi-billion dollar facility, and there are so many different fabs, and processes, and details involved that no single engineer understands all the details of making a typical chip! Then we have the equally complex issues of packaging and testing the thing, each of which is a speciality in itself!

There are layers upon layers of technology that go into building the tools to refine the materials to build the products we use, and the mix is constantly changing.

Then we have the enormously complex issues of logistics, i.e. getting things where they're needed, when they're needed. It's such a complex subject that in military science it's said that amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. Again, doing things on a small scale is one thing. Doing them on a large scale (and in a timely manner) often involves a lot of complications one doesn't encounter in toy or small scale projects.

The mechanisms of cost and price and profit provide a means by which organizations can measure their performance, and that measurement becomes the basis for improvin

Re:Capitalism.

[Joining Yet Again]

I'm not quite sure why the patronising lecture about the complexity of building modern stuff. Britain hasn't been a strong manufacturing nation since our response to the Oil Crisis was not to modernise our processes but to flog off to the private sector in the name of quasi-religious neocon fantasy - now we're at the mercy of countries like China which regulate markets in the country's interest.

The USSR's collapse was both sudden and political (though revisionists like to pretend it they had seen it coming for a long time, the outcome was not considered remotely likely until after 1985) - it was certainly not democratic, as all but the Baltic states returned votes in favour of the union; and the country was in "economic crisis" in no worse sense than the West's own recent crisis, with a series of bailouts and over-extended debts following that, rather than a cancellation of the whole economic system. And we recall anti-Soviet propaganda of queues for food even as half a million Britons are now regarded as in food poverty, and the Red Cross will for the first time since WW2 deliver food aid this winter.

The argument about shortages under central planning is just one of accounting: in a centrally planned system, you say that anyone who can't get something assigned is experiencing a "shortage" and you blame the system; in a market system, you say that anyone who can't get something is simply too poor to afford it, and you blame the individual. But the outcome is exactly the same.

Anyway, the trend is toward central planning. A fledgling economy where everyone has only pencil and paper is best managed with small, dynamic, independent organisations - but an established marketplace armed with today's computers naturally consolidates.

Re:Capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

So identify your alternative and practical plan for acheiving it already. How would you scale back capitalism? You could amend it into a welfare-state like some of the European countries have, but it would still be fundamentally capitalist. Would you seize the means of production? Abolish money? A fair number of people won't like your plan and some will physically resist. What are you prepared to do to those who resist? What if you start to implement your plan, it underperforms and the masses bail on you? Will you cancel the next election? Or maybe advocate a law to allow President/Prime Minister/whatever Joining more terms to accomplish the mission? What if the legislative body will not pass this law. What if they do, but Judges strike it down? Right now you don't sound like any kind of serious socialist or anarcho-syndicalist but more like you've joined a cult. When is the last time you saw a version of Historical Materialism updated to fit the contexts of the very many things we now know from archaeology and other sciences that Marx and Engels did not know or were wrong about with respect to the history of human societies? I think you only promise pie in the future in lieu of pie in the sky.

It's a shame

[darrellg1]

that this will go to waste. No mainstream media in the US will report this, and if they do, it will be spun into a negative light. Now we got posters on here, the Guardian, and other sites that are obvious shills or just plain dumb.

Re:It's a shame

[Sarten-X]

You mean the ones who disagree?

Re:It's a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree the fans are just plain dumb but how is that constructive?

Re:It's a shame

[TWiTfan]

I saw it mentioned this morning on CNN. Of course, being the good government lick-boots they are, they were mocking it and parading out politician after politician to deride it.

Re:It's a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

I trust FOX news will publish a sane and balanced view of the manifesto.

Re:It's a shame

[bill_mcgonigle]

I saw it mentioned this morning on CNN.

So, is this manifesto a good thing or a bad thing?

Re:It's a shame

[Runaway1956]

I disagree. Even if all of us in the US were completely blocked from reading Snowden's words - he is something of a celebrity outside the US. The fools in Washington continue to be exposed and embarrassed over stuff as stupid as spying on Merkel. Snowden helps to solidify discontent outside the US. It all makes a difference, in the long run.

I really don't believe the TSA or any other intel agency is going to have free rein to do as it damned well wishes in the future. Whatever else may be true of presidents and congress critters, it is also true that none of them enjoy being embarrassed publicly.

Re:It's a shame

[darrellg1]

Exactly my point. I'm still confused how my comment got marked Troll though, unless people either thought I was being snarky or didn't read the whole thing. I'm in full support of Snowden.

Re:It's a shame

[Runaway1956]

You mean "fair and balanced". I've never heard anyone on Fox claim to be "sane".

Re:It's a shame

[GodfatherofSoul]

Nonsense, this is all over mainstream media. I saw it being discussed on 3 TV news networks this morning.

Re:It's a shame

[cffrost]

I really don't believe the TSA or any other intel agency [...]

A quality post, but I think you meant to write NSA; TSA is among USA's leading unintel agencies.

Yes it is

[Sarten-X]

To tell the truth is not a crime.

Yes, it is. You may have some moral justification, but it can still be a crime. In the US, telling the truth about intelligence techniques to real and potential enemies is a crime, even if you also tell the public. Snowden broke the law, and is now a criminal evading law enforcement, but he satisfied his own conscience.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

To tell the truth is not a crime.

Yes, it is. You may have some moral justification, but it can still be a crime. In the US, telling the truth about intelligence techniques to real and potential enemies is a crime, even if you also tell the public. Snowden broke the law, and is now a criminal evading law enforcement, but he satisfied his own conscience.

Interesting view. You do realize that in this case, 'potential enemies' refers to the entire population of the US?
One might ponder the aims of such a government.

Re:Yes it is

[oodaloop]

So what is the legal alternative to his whistleblowing? How should he have his concerns addressed regarding unconstitutional surveillance?

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that for all we know only 10% of the data he release could be considered whistle blowing on the US, while the 90% is data that does more harm than good. Of course his fans will only concentrate on the 10% and pretend that all of his intentions were good.

Re:Yes it is

[fox171171]

To tell the truth is not a crime.

Yes, it is. You may have some moral justification, but it can still be a crime. In the US, telling the truth about intelligence techniques to real and potential enemies is a crime, even if you also tell the public. Snowden broke the law, and is now a criminal evading law enforcement, but he satisfied his own conscience.

Why is it that truth about a crime is a bigger crime than the original crime itself?

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

In rebuttal': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake

Thomas Andrews Drake (born 1957) is a former senior executive of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), a decorated United States Air Force and United States Navy veteran, and a whistleblower. In 2010 the government alleged that Drake "mishandled" documents, one of the few such Espionage Act cases in U.S. history. Drake's defenders claim that he was instead being persecuted for challenging the Trailblazer Project.[4][5][6][7][8][9] He is the 2011 recipient of the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling and co-recipient of the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) award.

On June 9, 2011, all 10 original charges against him were dropped. Drake rejected several deals because he refused to "plea bargain with the truth". He eventually pled to one misdemeanor count for exceeding authorized use of a computer;[10] Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project, who helped represent him, called it an act of "civil disobedience."

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government has a ombudsman program that allows people to "blow the whistle" on programs or individuals that abuse their power. It can be done without the need for the full blown espionage and having to take up residence in a long time adversarial country and take a job working for the foreign government.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

"Snowden broke the law"

Considering he hasn't stood trial you can't really say he's broken the law. And whilst he may be evaiding Law Enforcement, it doesn't make him a criminal.

Just thought I should remind the great nation of America about the whole "Innocent till proven guilty" concept of law. It's right up there with habeas corpus... oh never mind.

Re:Yes it is

[ZouPrime]

The US government isn't pissed about Snowden because "the entire US population" learned about their foreign eavesdropping operations, but because foreign intelligence agencies did.

Re:Yes it is

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You do realize that in this case, 'potential enemies' refers to the entire population of the US?

You may be surprised to find out that is not actually the case. A vast number of the US population demanded that we should give up some of our civil liberties in exchange for great security.

I argued against the idea but the political environment immediately after the 9/11 attack demanded that the government do everything possible to protect its citizens no matter the cost in money or civil liberties.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

When you report the crime of a nation to that nation, you lose. period.

Re:Yes it is

[cavreader]

This happened over 12 years ago but today people are acting like the outing of the recent SIGINT capabilities is groundbreaking news. Almost as shocking as the governments around the world claiming they had no idea the US had such capabilities.

Re:Yes it is

[davecb]

Regrettably, ombudmen generally aren't allowed to challenge the board of directors, only report individual managers' or groups' misbehavior to the board, who then decide.

It's a fast path to management, but it only works if the people it goes to are not the ones who've created or signed off on the misbehavior.

Commons committees used to be the better alternative to ombuds in government, as they were lawmakers themselves and could change the law out from under a misbehaving executive. Alas, here in Canada they've been reduced to collections of trained seals, and in the U.S. to deadlocks.

--dave

Re:Yes it is

[footNipple]

- Talk to a lawyer
- Perhaps make contact with the house intelligence committee and give them 90 days to respond
- If no response, make contact with attorneys in UK, France and/or Germany

There were many proper and very effective ways to deal with a crisis of conscience in this matter. Snowden chose not to do this because he thinks he is special.

Re:Yes it is

[Clsid]

You really haven't worked with government before. Sorry to be so blunt man, but you are being too naive.

Re:Yes it is

[Sarten-X]

The surveillance causes some embarrassment and a loss of trust. Enemies being able to evade the surveillance can cause death.

...Not that the death is particularly likely, mind you, but aiding an enemy is considered by the law to be more heinous than breaches of privacy.

Re:Yes it is

[aaaaaaargh!]

The US government isn't pissed about Snowden because "the entire US population" learned about their foreign eavesdropping operations, but because foreign intelligence agencies did.

Contrary to what you think, they are pissed about both, and more so about the US population because it consists of their voters ...

Re:Yes it is

[canadian_right]

Pretty much all foreign intelligence agencies already knew about what the NSA was up to; the USA government IS upset because Snowden informed the USA general public.

What the NSA was and is doing wasn't a big secret among governments. Many of the governments now complaining about being spied on cooperated with the USA to gather and share much of this information. Yes, they might be pissed that the USA crossed a few lines here and there, but they knew the USA was spying on everyone.

Re:Yes it is

[aaaaaaargh!]

If Snowden had followed your advice, he would have been arrested immediately and then charged with treason, espionage and/or theft of classified data.

Even his lawyer would have been gagged by secret courts under the Patriot act and nobody would have ever heard of any of this except as a little side note ("cranky former contractor in clinch with US government about handling of classified data").

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for making up meaningless statistical claims that support your own subjective point of view of the matter. That's always a valuable contribution to /. debates.

Re:Yes it is

[ZouPrime]

The fact that the NSA was spying foreign nationals wasn't a big secret indeed, considering it's the very reason of the organisation existence. But then, it wasn't a big secret in the US either.

The details of actual operations is a completely different matter. To take the most obvious example, the Germans certainly didn't know Merkel cell phone was compromised for so long, or they would have reacted before. Same thing for the Chinese targets Snowden disclosed. The Chinese knew the US were very interested in what they were doing, but it obviously doesn't mean they knew about the actual targets or the actual vulnerabilities use to compromise them. And that's where the big loss is for the NSA.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that truth about a crime is a bigger crime than the original crime itself?

I don't think the GP said anything about which one is bigger, but there are sayings about that: two wrongs don't make a right; the ends don't justify the means...

Yes, those sayings can also be applied to the NSA, but again, that doesn't give us/Snowden carte blanche to do anything and everything we want to take them down.

Well, not unless you want to give up on that rule of law thing. Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. When you reach that last one, you're basically saying the rule of law has failed and violence is needed to restore order.

Re:Yes it is

[ZouPrime]

You think people are going to vote Republicans because they are pissed at the NSA?
The Patriot Act was voted under a Republican president.

Re:Yes it is

[Pav]

Persue things internally like Binney or Drake to get hammered and threatened before they were forced to go public? Worked for them didn't it. How about the Plames? It's sad that the only proven endangerment of operatives in any of the past years of leaks was Cheney taking political revenge against the wife of a dissenter. I'd imagine if anyone raises a concern these days anywhere in government there would be more efficient mechanisms to discredit and dispose of them... seems to be an Obama specialty. I personally know a whistleblower who tried internal mechanisms - the well oiled process saw a psychologist label her mentally defective before she was efficiently terminated. This was not the US government but a local council.

Re:Yes it is

[Runaway1956]

No - Snowden is a "fugitive" and a "refugee" evading a Gestapo-like intelligence community. He is not, and will not, be a "criminal" unless and until a trial is held to determine the criminality of his actions. It is for this reason that Russia granted him political asylum. Political arrests are so Cold War Era.

Re:Yes it is

[sl4shd0rk]

Snowden broke the law, and is now a criminal evading law enforcement

Technically, yes, but technically so did the NSA; do we get to hold them to your same breed of logic? Snowden didn't leak pictures of the next supersekrit wizzbang gadget, or post Adobe Photoshop code on pastebin. He witnessed a system so out of control that there are no laws or legal system to contain it, or bring it back into balance. This isn't a matter of breaking an NDA agreement. Egregious breaches of the law need to be reported and the people who report them need to be given the freedom from legal consequence while those responsible need to be brought to trial.

Re:Yes it is

[melikamp]

Why is it that truth about a crime is a bigger crime than the original crime itself?

It is because the bigger the crime, the better it pays. The Chinese figured this one out a long time ago:

Steal a hook and you hang as a crook; steal a kingdom and you are made a duke. ~Zhuangzi

Re:Yes it is

[Runaway1956]

Well - we're back to the age-old complaint about government. Government is SUPPOSED to represent the people. Most Americans who care enough to have an opinion actually approve of Edward Snowden. The clueless and the apathetic just don't give a damn, and they'll go along with whatever government tells them.

Re:Yes it is

[Runaway1956]

Thumbs up, Bill. There were so very damned few of us who were jealous of our rights. The lemmings flocked into line, to approve of everything the Stasi wanted. They couldn't be bothered to listen to the voice of reason.

Re:Yes it is

[Vitriol Angst]

To tell the truth is not a crime.

Yes, it is. You may have some moral justification, but it can still be a crime. In the US, telling the truth about intelligence techniques to real and potential enemies is a crime, even if you also tell the public. Snowden broke the law, and is now a criminal evading law enforcement, but he satisfied his own conscience.

Why is it that truth about a crime is a bigger crime than the original crime itself?

I wouldn't know for sure, but I suspect there are a lot of ID10-t errors of judgement and backbone in this country. This is a non-partisan "do you understand that transparency is required for a Democracy to function?" moment. It's really galling in that we've got countless examples of how an informed public responds well and delivers more bad guys than cover surveillance, and we've got numerous examples of intelligence failures DESPITE collecting everything along with the kitchen sync. Looking at everything, no matter how useless the information is a huge distraction.

These NSA fans and the people they support read too many spy novels and think that treating all humans as if they had rights with dignity and respect is a suspicious activity.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not so much pissed about what the NSA was, is, and will continue to be doing.

I am much more pissed by the fact that my own (non-US) government appears to be puppeteered by our non-US secret service which in turn is in bed with the NSA.

I seem to recall one of the earlier ppt snapshots showed one of the espionage centers was located slap bang in the middle of Sudan (Khartoum), so I guess the Sudanese secret service is in bed with the NSA, the GCHQ, our secret service, and the Sudanese secret service.

I am pissed that there is zero democratically elected parliamental control over all this internationally inter-linked secret service stuff.

I am also pissed that most people fail to realize this.

Re:Yes it is

[intermodal]

The way they define "enemy" these days is one of the more damning revelations he made. Most of 'em aren't enemies at all.

Re:Yes it is

[naasking]

The US government isn't pissed about Snowden because "the entire US population" learned about their foreign eavesdropping operations, but because foreign intelligence agencies did.

Ha, keep telling yourself that. They all knew.

Re:Yes it is

[hamburger lady]

in this new article, did he reiterate his belief that leakers should be 'shot in the balls'?

Re:Yes it is

[Immerman]

Who said anything about the ammo box? Snowden is busy using the soap box. We have a huge invasive secret surveillance program that's been signed off on by the government. The only way to realistically challenge it is to drag it into the public eye so that the ballot and jury boxes have a shot at making a difference, what isn't known can't be challenged. We may still eventually devolve to the ammo box if those in government refuse to yield their invasive power and the populace refuses to let them keep it unchallenged, but that's a question for a later date.

Re:Yes it is

[Opportunist]

A perfect example of how "legal" and "right" are not synonymous.

Re:Yes it is

[Opportunist]

Erh... if any country on this planet thinks that there are no spies trying to sniff through their dirty laundry for some other country, they are either deluded or simply SO far out of the loop that the effort to spy on them is not warranted by the potential intelligence.

Countries spy on each other, and they know it. Actually, I'd be very surprised if they didn't know what the NSA is doing and, instead of being outraged, tried to get in on the deal. SWIFT comes to mind, as well as a few other things that I don't want to discuss in public. The current outrage and outcry of various heads of state is mostly a smokescreen theater for the plebs.

I'm actually quite sure that the US government is exactly pissed at Snowden BECAUSE the US population knows about it now. Until now the US spooks were the "good" guys, protecting the US from teh evilz abroad. Now they're unmasked as being the local version of the Stasi.

Re:Yes it is

[Opportunist]

"The political environment"? When did that become synonymous to "the people"?

Immediately after the attack, the support for some retaliation might have been pretty high, but you really think it still is?

Re:Yes it is

[Iridium_Hack]

Is Telling the Truth a Crime? It is always available to make a law that makes it a crime - especially when it hurts people in power. Please consider the case of Peter Zenger, a printer in the colonies before the Revolutionary war. One link to info on that is: http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_3.pdf. Here is an excerpt.

When Peter Zenger, a New York printer, was charged with criminal libel for criticizing the royal governor, Zenger wished to argue at his trial that his remarks were true. The court instructed the jury that truth was no defense. Defense counsel Andrew Hamilton, however, urged the jury to reach their own conclusions about this legal issue. They did so, acquitted Zenger, and struck a blow for free speech that was critical to the struggle for independence a few decades later.

The prosecution argued that because his criticisms were true it made his revealing them to be an even more serious crime! Alexander Hamilton, an excellent lawyer and later founding father, defended Zenger and said the law could also be judged by a jury. The law could itself be found to be unjust, or, unjustly applied. Either way, if the jury by it's own conscience found the accused innocent, it was duty-bound not to convict. This sort of thing occurred in England before, in the case of William Penn. It has become known as Jury Nullification and is a right never challenged by any Supreme Court. It is why there is a right to a jury trial. It is so a government cannot rubber-stamp a conviction of someone they do not like. How about you? If you were in a trial where you had disclosed actions by the government violating civil rights causing embarrassment of those in power, wouldn't you want an impartially picked jury making the final decision rather than a judge, appointed by the same government?

So go ahead and say it is illegal . . . . even if the laws that make it illegal have questionable (at best) Constitutional authority. Now perhaps at some point, it will become established law that a person accused of crimes affecting national security will not be afforded a lawyer. And if he is declared innocent by the jury, the government can still keep him in custody. This stuff is already in the NDAA (National Defence Authorization Act). But If it's what you want to do, go with the flow and say what Snowden did is illegal. A lot of government officials say so. It is safe to agree.

Or, Instead, why not do your own research. Don't just believe me or anyone else. Check out the Peter Zenger trial. Like many others, I do not believe Snowden could get a fair trial in this country. The government, after capturing him, would hold him as long as possible before a trial. They would leak all kinds of info to our news sources about bad things he did. And then, only if they could load the jury would they go forward with it. And even if they lost, they would still find a reason to nullify a jury verdict. I hate to say that. But it happens in other countries and I believe it to be the case here that it could happen here also.

Re:Yes it is

[Opportunist]

How cute. We called them Blockleiter back in the times. Tsk, the US is like the Chinks, really, all they can do is copy, first the rockets, now that...

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about the ammo box?

Not everyone, but quite a few people. Many people think Snowden would be unfairly tried (or worse, indefinitely imprisoned) if he turned himself it. They're implying they can't even use the jury box.

Snowden is busy using the soap box

No, he's well past that. Soap box is what you and I are doing. You don't have to flee our country wanted for crimes to use the soap box.

Snowden would be in the jury box if he turned himself in, and as above, many people feel the jury box won't suffice.

Re:Yes it is

[Opportunist]

(Let's pretend for a moment that these numbers actually have a root in reality instead of coming straight out of your rear end...)

How can a country that thinks it's ok to kill 90 civilians to hit 10 terrorists think that this could possibly be wrong?

Re:Yes it is

[Opportunist]

Because the crime is committed by the people that have the power and make the laws. Duh.

Re:Yes it is

[Bill_the_Engineer]

"The political environment"? When did that become synonymous to "the people"?

Ever since the US has been a republic and not a direct democracy which would be since the birth of our nation. Each representative acted with their constituents fears and desires in mind. Many of them were reelected.

Immediately after the attack, the support for some retaliation might have been pretty high, but you really think it still is?

It wasn't just the desire for retaliation, there were very loud calls to investigate why the government did little to prevent the attack. People demanded answers from their representatives and the representatives acted accordingly. If public opinion polls are to be believed, it appears the desire for more security at the expense of some civil liberty is still there.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Snowden did indeed commit crimes. So did Ghandi. So did MLK Jr. So did Jesus. So did every Saudi woman who ever drove a car. Sometimes, a committing a crime is the only moral thing to do.

Re:Yes it is

[orthancstone]

Contrary to what you think, they are pissed about both, and more so about the US population because it consists of their voters ...

You mean the same US population that had access to stories like this, http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/, well over a year prior to Snowden yet still managed to be ignorant?

Nah, I don't think the government is that worried about the general populous.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Using cannabis is a federal crime. The euthanasia practice of prohibition of marihuana is also a crime.

Re:Yes it is

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Most Americans who care enough to have an opinion actually approve of Edward Snowden.

The Pew Center for the People and the Press found that while 49% of the people believe the release of the information is helpful (versus 44% believing it harms), 54% of all people surveyed believe the US should go forward with a criminal case against Snowden.

I can understand why you feel the way you do since according to the same poll for people under the age of 30, 60% of those surveyed believe the release of the information is helpful. Despite that 60% helpful opinion, people under the age of 30 was evenly divided over the question of the US going forward with its criminal case against Snowden.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference spying on foreign agencies to ensure they're not up to something, and spying on them for commercial reasons when that act in itself will give you prison time here in the US.

Re:Yes it is

[mu51c10rd]

The problem is thinking the existing whistleblower mechanisms would work in this case. Had he reported this to IG, IG would have responded that the judicial (FISA) has signed off on it and Congress (Patriot Act) authorized it. It would have never reached the public and there is no oversight as all 3 branches were working together against the people's wishes. How about we do a referendum on this for the midterm elections next year? I am sure the House and a few Senators would love to be a ballot with this uncomfortable question next to them.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

The surveillance causes some embarrassment and a loss of trust. Enemies being able to evade the surveillance can cause death.

...Not that the death is particularly likely, mind you, but aiding an enemy is considered by the law to be more heinous than breaches of privacy.

Arguably what gave more aid and comfort to the enemies of the US than Snowden's revelations was that what he and others revealed was the truth.

The US is not the shining city on the hill where people can travel freely and speak without fear of reprisal. It's just as corrupt as the USSR or North Korea, who are/would have been heartend by the news. The Emperor has no clothes. Freedom is a pretense, so we're just as good as the USA.

In other words, the real traitors are those who created this whole rotten scheme to begin with. They betrayed their nation's ideals and thereby undermined its moral authority.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

By your own reasoning: you just spoke out against a former govt official (snowden)... does this mean you should be subjected to fines/imprisonment/water-boarding as a result?

Re:Yes it is

[Sarten-X]

They betrayed their nation's ideals and thereby undermined its moral authority.

That's assuming it had moral authority to begin with. America's enemies, almost by definition, don't accept it as a moral leader, for various reasons. Cuba doesn't like how we've screwed up their political sovereignty (pretty much for as long as they've been sovereign). Several Middle-Eastern factions don't like how American culture is squeezing out their own traditions. China doesn't like our treatment of Communism. Russia has been portrayed as a second-class country since World War II.

American history is full of shame, but we just don't cover it in schools. Every few years, we forget that we're just as bad as everywhere else, but differently. Then somebody brings up something we've done wrong, and everyone is so surprised that we could ever be so imperfect. After all, we have that lovely Constitution, written by those omniscient forefathers, which protects us all from every injustice everywhere, right?

Re:Yes it is

[ZouPrime]

From the point of view of intelligence agencies worldwide, there's no real difference. Both have an impact of their respective countries interests. Both have been done for decades. This ship has sail a long time ago.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

So what is the legal alternative to his whistleblowing? How should he have his concerns addressed regarding unconstitutional surveillance?

I don't know of one. Why do you assume that one must exist? Just because you think something is morally right, doesn't make it legal.

Re:Yes it is

[Immerman]

I think you may be misunderstanding those boxes a little, especially the jury box. Consider them in terms of an escalating level of conflict between citizens and their government:

What Snowden has done so far is talk - that's the soap box. He's speaking truths that powerful people would rather keep secret, so he has to stay out of their grasp if he wants to avoid being silenced. And those people are a powerful force within his government - so that means he has to flee his country. But still, what he's done to actually try to change things is shout from his soap box, trying to rouse the populace to become interested.

The Ballot box is where citizens say that they're interested, mostly by somehow convincing their representatives that they will only vote for someone who does X. We could debate just how effective this actually is in the US at present. ...If the ballot box fails to result in laws in accordance with the will of the people, then we resort to...

The Jury box is where ordinary citizens get final say over the application of the law of the land on a case by case basis. By long tradition as a jurist it is your right to find someone innocent by reason of misapplication or unjustness of the law, though it may sometimes be wiser to just say "not guilty" or hang the jury. If it becomes commonplace that certain "crimes" will be so acquitted the laws will generally be either changed or officially ignored. This also serves as a level of protection for dissidents who have clearly violated the letter of the law in pursuit of a worthy cause, provided that those in power are still give them a chance to appear before a jury and convince at least one of them that they're not guilty by reason of higher purpose. THAT however depends on jurists knowing that they have been also been granted authority as judges on the just application of law as well as the legal adherence of the accused, which is not common knowledge in the modern US.

And finally the ammo box - if the government refuses to honor the final authority of the jury and acts against individuals without first acquiring a guilty verdict from a jury of peers, then it has slipped the leash of democracy and is no longer deriving its authority from the people, but instead imposing it upon them. And as it's rare for a despot to relinquish power voluntarily we must be willing and able to impose our collective will and take it back.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you ever consider that this might just be a convienient line...

Do you think it actually matters that everyone walks around wishing people dead; yet, if you tell someone you're thinking of killing someone they get a little concerned...

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA has not broken any laws(which is the bigger problem). Everything they do is well within the law according to the PATRIOT Act.

And Snowden didn't sign a simple NDA. To get his security clearance he signed an agreement that is binding for the entirety of his life. Not only did he waive his rights, but he knowingly joined a system that controls what he is allowed to say outside of the system. By speaking to the public, he breached that contract. Whether people agree with him, the NSA, or the current events, he breached his contract. And the penalty is steep.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden broke the law, and is now a criminal evading law enforcement

Technically, yes, but technically so did the NSA;

What law did the NSA break? You may not like what they did, but your whims are not the law. What specific law was broken?

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

What Snowden has done so far is talk - that's the soap box.

Sure, talking is soap box, but Snowden didn't "just" talk.

He also fled his country. Fleeing his country is beyond soap box.

You said it yourself that the ammo box comes after people feel that government is ignoring the final verdict from the jury.

Well, that's what many people feel the government is doing: it is ignoring the Constitution, which is the final verdict from the People as a whole on what government can or cannot do.

They feel that the government is ignoring the First Amendment (and others) in such a way that Snowden had to flee just so he can talk. If the government wasn't ignoring the verdicts given to them by the people (the Constitution) he wouldn't have had to flee in the first place.

Re:Yes it is

[Camel Pilot]

To tell the truth is not a crime.

Yes, it is. You may have some moral justification, but it can still be a crime. In the US, telling the truth about intelligence techniques to real and potential enemies is a crime, even if you also tell the public. Snowden broke the law, and is now a criminal evading law enforcement, but he satisfied his own conscience.

Correct... A specific example Snowden leaked to a Hong Kong newspaper classified documents that revealed the specific IP addresses in Hong Kong and China that NSA may have hacked. What's up with that? Apparently out of desperation or drunk with his new found fame he was trying to curry favor with China and Russia... that is chicken shit IMHO. What he has given up to Russia one can only guess.

The irony is he has to hide out in Russia... a country known for its liberal freedoms and openness.

Re:Yes it is

[mrchaotica]

You may be surprised to find out that is not actually the case. A vast number of the US population demanded that we should give up some of our civil liberties in exchange for great security.

They don't actually get to make that decision without amending the Constitution to abolish the 4th Amendment.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the litmus test seems to be that PRISM target foreigners and any US citizens information collected is purely incidental.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

To tell the truth is not a crime.

Yes, it is. You may have some moral justification, but it can still be a crime. In the US, telling the truth about intelligence techniques to real and potential enemies is a crime, even if you also tell the public. Snowden broke the law, and is now a criminal evading law enforcement, but he satisfied his own conscience.

What are you talking about??? Have you seen anything from the published files, that the rest of the worlds governments haven't already known, spying is as old as war itself, and people in and outside the military are aware of it. Everyone spies on everyone and yet when it is made public the media acts as if it is something new. Sharing the data/intelligence has gone on since after WWII. Has he shown or exposed anything that people of the US and world hadn't already known or figured out? I have yet to hear of any other agencies involved, that are unknown to the US public, I have yet to see anything that exposes the NSA's operations in detail, and there was a slashdot linked article http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xs8zd7_william-binney-hope-9-keynote-part1_tech which explains how the system is suppose to work. And yet I do not see William behind bars!!!

What crime did he commit? There is no evidence of Snowden giving away detailed files of how the NSA works as a whole, no detailed files of projects current/future that have become public. There is no evidence that he is carrying around these files, or that China and Russia had acquired any files that could aide them.

The whole point of going after someone is because they gave out information that aided the enemy, nothing thus far proves that, and Snowden isn't a whistle blower because the files published thus far contain nothing that people haven't already known. He could turn himself in and plead his case, that nothing he has done has aided the enemy. "Terrorists" are aware of spying that is going on at this large of a scale this is also nothing new to them. Were talking of a group that is very apt at computers, hacking, and gathering there own intelligence, they can avoid the US and or worlds spy tactics. Sorry but if the enemy already knows what your up to before Snowden, Snowden is the least of your problems.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Also mind that most older folks know that the agency handles any communication cross the border. If it leaves or enters this country, it's going to get tagged... much like anything else (think, how is that different from US Customs & bringing stuff into and out of the US??). FBI handles internal communications, but requires a warrant of course (yes, there's abuse, but I say it's small and one needs to decide to trust the regulations or not in the end).

Snowden just appears to announce his beliefs, offer nothing to prove his belief aside from revealing how a system works (no evidence of misuse or tampering, and Germany is playing politics, maybe to protect its corporate entities?). This is much like the occupy wall street scenario, rallying a group of folks by anger, applying no reason and just shouting the system be torn apart based on philosophical pontificating.

There's no clear cut answer in this situation (spying) and I say just keep the conversation moving, though in a lot of political chatter.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

The surveillance causes some embarrassment and a loss of trust.

And as such, they shouldn't have done it in the first place.

aiding an enemy is considered by the law to be more heinous than breaches of privacy.

Of course it is. They don't want people do know when they do the wrong thing.
However, how is this different from kids pointing out priests that fiddled with them? Crimes have been commited to the detriment of a few of the populous, and pointing it out causes problems for well respected people high in the community, and lessens everyones faith in the people whom are supposed to lead them.

I still say that the truth still needs to be told, and people held responsible for what they did. To say that everyone should keep quiet so that people don't loose faith in those leading them or that it gives oppertunity to their opposition doesn't change the fact that they still did something wrong.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury box, Jury nullification, same thing. But that's less and less powerful as, way back there, the courts made changes to how and when they even go to a jury for a decision. White people were annulling cases against white guys lynching black guys. It was a bit of a problem.

Now a days it's less of an option because as the coward pointed out, Snowden probably wouldn't get to go in front of a jury. ...wait a sec: " provided that those in power are still give them a chance to appear before a jury " yeah, that bit.

There are still hung juries, but the powers that be have eroded the concept that the people are powerful through the jury box.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

"He witnessed a system so out of control"

Out of control? Did he? He never explained that part. All I saw was he revealed a system no different and almost as big as Google's, Facebook's, or Microsoft's and then he disappeared. Hell, Intuit's (TurboTax) is probably bigger and more revealing. And he draws no parallels to show he understood that system, how it works, why it works the way it does, why it was architect-ed in that manner, and the evidence that says "heck yeah, we want to spy on the American people!". He saw just a "hell a lot of info being collected", much like any airport security system in the world mind that, had disdain for his job and with a paranoidic conclusion (control state) that his employer was "bad" as a whole.

Now he's speaking, peppered with philosophical one-liners. That's not what I want to hear, but self accounts and why it's bad.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

but should it be a crime to tell about crimes?

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only one crime.

Re:Yes it is

[RespekMyAthorati]

The constitution in general, and the 4th amendment in particular, is quite vague as to what is allowed and what isn't.
If voters are willing to go along with it, that's all that matters.

Re:Yes it is

[sjames]

Most of them are the very citizens they are supposed to serve.

Re:Yes it is

[sjames]

That case was the first thing I thought of when the whole Snowden debacle came out. Drake told us that the NSA deliberately avoided the inexpensive technology that would only reveal the identities of people who fit the legal criteria for the NSA to investigate in favor of the fantastically expensive tech that would reveal far more than they had a mandate to know.

In return, he was prosecuted on many trumped up charges.

Re:Yes it is

[crimson tsunami]

So you want to be able to tell the US population, but not tell any foreign intelligence agencies finding out?

Care to explain how?

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Spying on your own citizens.

You really didnt know this?

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal search and seizure.

Spying on American citizens.

I'm sure we will hear of others

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

I must have missed the trial.

Maybe you need to put a few alledge's in there.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA has not broken any laws(which is the bigger problem). Everything they do is well within the law according to the PATRIOT Act.

And Snowden didn't sign a simple NDA. To get his security clearance he signed an agreement that is binding for the entirety of his life. Not only did he waive his rights, but he knowingly joined a system that controls what he is allowed to say outside of the system. By speaking to the public, he breached that contract. Whether people agree with him, the NSA, or the current events, he breached his contract. And the penalty is steep.

Completely incorrect. The highest law in the land is the Bill of Rights. The 9th Amendment provides for the ability of the people to assert rights retained by them as needed. The 10th Amendment provides for the ability of the people to assert rights reserved to them as needed. The principle that the Bill of Rights is open ended and the people can assert rights as needed is so important it appears in the Bill of Rights twice!

To the extent that the Patriot Act violates fundamental rights the people might reasonably want to assert as being retained by them under the 9th Amendment, or reserved to them under the 10th, it is an illegal law. No government agency can use an illegal law to justify any form of activity against the people.

NO CONTRACT CAN TAKE THIS AWAY, as the Bill of Rights, being the highest law in the land, supersedes contract law (if this were not the cause, the government could infringe ANY right at all, simply by adding appropriate mechanisms to contract law, such as a shrink wrap contract that everybody agrees to simply by breathing!). It also supersedes the ability of Congress to pass laws classifying information. It supersedes the authority of Congress to determine that a person is a traitor. It supersedes executive orders and judicial precedents. It supersedes the authority of state and local government.

In the case of the 9th Amendment, it is NOT even within the authority of the Supreme Court to take away these rights, for if the court did so, those rights would no longer be retained (a proof by contradiction, for those who have studied Euclid).

One fundamental right is the right of long term public oversight over government. A security contract or agreement that is binding for the entirety of an individual's life directly violates this right by preventing oversight, and as such is illegal on its face.

The NSA has violated rights reasonably asserted as being retained by the people, such as the right to privacy, and thus the actions of this agency are illegal. In revealing them, Snowden was acting under the shield of the Bill of Rights.

Enough members of the public approve of Snowden's actions to allow any impartial observer to conclude that these actions are an exercise of rights retained by the people, and hence LEGAL in any jurisdiction that respects the Bill of Rights.

Only in situations where the people (not the government) decide they will not exercise their 9th and 10th Amendment rights can contracts be used to temporarily surrender such a right.

Re:Yes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

And alarms go off at the NSA before the ombudsman even picks up the phone. If I were the NSA, it'd be the first line I'd tap.

Snowden, if anyone, knows the extent of the surveillance, so why should he have wasted his time, safety and freedom with this number?

Re:Yes it is

[jwhitener]

Technically, yes, but technically so did the NSA;

I was under the impression that that secret intelligence court, the one who's judges are appointed by the Chief Justice, had already declared that what the NSA was doing was constitutional.

Specifically what did the NSA do that was illegal, as defined by court rulings?

unabomber

[Anonymous Coward]

Awfully short for a manifesto.

Also: the Unabomber's manifesto was much more interesting

Re:unabomber

[Bob_Who]

The unibomber's stuff was much more explosive ... than an NSA Snow(den) job.

...and you lost!

[Anonymous Coward]

Manifesto. This is what transcends you from someone who may or may not have a point directly to lunatic/homicidal maniac.

Never write a manifesto. Write letters, essays, op eds, blogs, whatever you like. But the instant that you label it a manifesto, you're done. Snowden just lost most of his cred with me.

Re:...and you lost!

[Sarten-X]

The Declaration of Independence is a manifesto. It just wasn't titled as such.

A manifesto simply explains the motivations and reasoning behind actions. It's a common trait of psychopaths and sociopaths, because they feel that their actions are completely logical, but the rest of society just needs a good explanation to wake up and rally to their cause.

Snowden doesn't need to explain his motivation to recruit followers, as the public outrage over surveillance is already quite significant. This seems to be less of a manifesto, and more of a reflection.

Re:...and you lost!

[Opportunist]

Did he call it a manifesto? Or was it called one, hoping to create exactly that reaction?

Re:...and you lost!

[Anonymous Coward]

Other reply already has it covered so I'll just...

Pffffttttttt

Re:...and you lost!

[Iridium_Hack]

Reflection?

OK, from a web dictionary, the definition of Reflection: serious thought or consideration. Perhaps that works. I see it, sort of. Snowden certainly did give serious thought or consideration in giving his assessment of NSA Spying on citizens. But reflection? It is like taking a bony, emaciated individual and calling them "fairly trim". Wouldn't it would be more accurate to go to slender. . . . or why not go to skinny. Really, if we are honest, just call it what it is and say "emaciated, bony, and starving to death." Isn't that better? It is obvious Snowden made decisions putting his future freedom, lifestyle, and possibly his physical life in jeapordy.

A stronger descriptive noun or adjective is in order.

Re:...and you lost!

[Anonymous Coward]

Being out of control and disconnected to rational sense is a common trait of a psychopath or sociopath. Not manifestos.

Re:...and you lost!

[Anonymous Coward]

A manifesto simply explains the motivations and reasoning behind actions. It's a common trait of psychopaths and sociopaths

Not quite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto#Notable_manifestos

How many, percentage-wise, of these manifestos were written by psychopaths and sociopaths? Certainly not the majority. You're skewing the meaning of manifesto.

Truthfesteroo Moscow!

[Bob_Who]

I wonder if it will be written in German or Russian...or in prison English.

Perhaps a Truthfesteroo with Pussy Riot and Assange and (Ms.) Bradley Manning would be a fun......overseas, that is.

I'm glad they spoke out, but it sure sucks to be them right now. Its sucks for a lot of folks right now. So let's Truthfesteroo!

Re:Truthfesteroo Moscow!

[Runaway1956]

So, you lump everyone who speaks out against government as being the same? Manning was a punk ass little shit, trying to "get even" with people he didn't like. Pussy Riot maybe has some valid points, but they fail to make those points very intelligible, instead choosing to shock people with outrageous behavior. Assange is at least a reasonable comparison with Snowden. Assange stands against ALL government secrecy, ours, the UK's, Russia's, China's - all secrecy. Yes - comparing Snowden to Assange is reasonable. I think Snowden might be the better man of the two, but it's a close call.

Re:Truthfesteroo Moscow!

[c0d3g33k]

Yes - comparing Snowden to Assange is reasonable. I think Snowden might be the better man of the two, but it's a close call.

I think that you (and I, and few other people) don't know enough to make that judgement call yet. Apart from the distorted picture the media paints of either of these men, I can honestly say I know almost nothing about them - certainly not enough to decide whether his claimed motivations are actually true. Based solely on the nature of the information released, how it was done, and how it has seemingly been kept out of the 'the wrong hands', Mr. Snowden seems to be the most responsible and thoughtful of the recent 'whistleblowers'. That suggests you may be right, and it might not even be a close call.

The Emperor's New Clothes

[udachny]

Hans Christian Andersen did not tell a fairy tale to little children, he told a political story about a system of lies and a whistle-blower but in his story the kid did not end up prosecuted. Guess what, Andersen wasn't familiar with the modern American Empire.

Re:The Emperor's New Clothes

[DaveV1.0]

No, "The Emperor's New Clothes" is not "a political story about a system of lies and a whistle-blower". It is a story about yes-men and making people afraid to tell the truth lead to bad decisions by leaders.

Re:The Emperor's New Clothes

[Bob_Who]

Fractured Faerie Tales indeed.

Where are Boris and Natasha?

Re:The Emperor's New Clothes

[Opportunist]

While not synonymous, I fail to see the difference in the current case. We're in a world of yes-men who don't dare to speak up or say or do anything that displeases the emperor because as long as they grin, nod and bear it they stay at the trough.

Re:The Emperor's New Clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

Fractured Faerie Tales indeed.

Where are Boris and Natasha?

Just an educated guess, most likely in Washington DC and London. After all, Snowden made them look like a bunch of sneeky, lying dirt bags, . . . because THEY ARE!

Why we need a radical like Rand Paul

[MikeRT]

Or Kucinich. Only a radical like Paul or Kucinich would have the ideology and the stones to order the FBI to dismantle the DEA's special operations division and treat every employee of the same as a probable criminal conspirator who conspired to systematically perjure themselves to win cases in federal court. You won't get this from a "mainstream guy" because moderates are moderates almost invariably because they either stand for nothing or have the intestinal fortitude of a freshly butchered lamb. One of the best articles I've ever read on moderates and why moderates have such a pernicious history in American politics is "The Paranoid Center" by Reason.

Re:Why we need a radical like Rand Paul

[Bob_Who]

Thanks, for that link, MikeRT.

Like I've heard said: "Everything in moderation, including moderation."

Its time to bust out of this social stupor - Where is the outrage, America? Bipolar is better than comatose.

Re:Why we need a radical like Rand Paul

[intermodal]

Can we stop using the term "mainstream"? Mainstream implies that they are more in line with what people want. Establishment, now that's a more accurate term.

Re:Why we need a radical like Rand Paul

[Opportunist]

We still got food, we still got shelter and we still got daytime TV.

Wait a bit. We're getting there.

Re:Why we need a radical like Rand Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

Rand Paul? really? His views are worse than most. Usually to the point of batshit insane.

Re:Why we need a radical like Rand Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but Kucinich is too insane to be of any value

Re:Why we need a radical like Rand Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys are as 'radical' as the hangnail on my left thumb.
There are no 'radicals' in the government.
They are not allowed.

Re:Why we need a radical like Rand Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only because fruitcakes like Paul and Kucinich want to dismantle everything. The cure is worse than the disease.

Re:Why we need a radical like Rand Paul

[CauseBy]

As a moderate, the thing I "stand for" is "no fucking bullshit". Paul and Kucinich are both full of fucking bullshit.

But if I had to choose between them I would choose Kucinich because of this.

Even to the voters

[Anonymous Coward]

" even if you also tell the public"

Even to the voters? Even to the Congress? How can we have a democracy in that situation.

NSA comic interpretation of the law is not a protected thing, it's a matter of importance for the public and the lawmakers.

Truth is a pathless land

[Anonymous Coward]

-- Jiddu Krishnamurthy

Check out on his writings.

Now he can continue the effort in Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Edward Snowden is a martyr for the truth, he can continue the effort in Russia, at his new job.

I'm sure his Russian benefactors are entirely committed to transparency and will back him all the way as he dumps details of their espionage activities. After all they have a such a huge, world renowned tradition of enforcing human rights and openness.

NOT

How the fuck would he know?

[DaveV1.0]

Seriously, he worked for the NSA, one agency in one country. How the fuck would he know who the worst offenders of international and domestic surveillance are? There are hundreds of countries with multiple spy agencies. He had access to some of the information about one and maybe some information about a few more. And, he thinks this qualifies him to make judgments about the internal and external surveillance apparatus of EVERY OTHER COUNTRY HE HAS NO INFORMATION ABOUT, including Russia, China, and North Korea? Really?

Lack of information about the internal and external surveillance apparatus of a country doesn't mean that country doesn't have an extensive and intrusive surveillance apparatus. It just means Snowden doesn't have information about that country. He literally doesn't have enough information to make that claim.

Re:How the fuck would he know?

[Anonymous Coward]

... more qualified than you for starters...

Re:How the fuck would he know?

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck he should not know? Which other country has the resources the US has? The fucking Chinese?

Re:How the fuck would he know?

[intermodal]

The amount of Internet traffic traversing the United States, combined with the amount of information we pull from foreign intelligence agencies working on our behalf, is a pretty good indicator.

Re:How the fuck would he know?

[DaveV1.0]

So, we should assume that the regimes that don't work with us don't have intelligence operations and that those that do work with us tell us everything they are doing?

We only know what we get from working with our allies and what we can glean from spying on other countries. At best, we have a very incomplete picture of the surveillance capabilities of many other countries including Russia and China.

An AC made a snide comment about China. I guess he forgets how many Chinese citizens are working in IT in the U.S. and how much of our infrastructure equipment is provided by Chinese companies, and that includes equipment used by the U.S. government. Think about all the Indian contractors in the U.S. as well. How many of those contractors could be covertly gathering intelligence simply by having access to the servers of Google, Microsoft, etc.?

Re:How the fuck would he know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, I see you've recently emerged out from under a rock, so let me fill you in on what you've missed. It turns out that the NSA has been collecting a lot of information about what happens outside the US, as well as inside. Among that information were profiles about what other info-collecting agencies in the world do: their methods, their reach, their total volume of information. If you had access to those NSA documents, as Snowden had, you could just read about it. That's how he would come to know who the worst offenders of international and domestic surveillance are.

Re:How the fuck would he know?

[Anonymous Coward]

You said how he knew. He worked for the NSA. You seriously think they dont know how good the other side is?

Re:How the fuck would he know?

[crimson tsunami]

If only there was some way for him to access that secret information, maybe he should try and get a job in a spy agency or something...

Re:Yes it is - No it isn't

[Anonymous Coward]

Another case of someone who thinks "the US" is that mythical Columbia representation of perfection, forever right and true. There is no crime from reporting another crime. There's no catch-22 either, it's pretty straight-forward - first offender, i.e. the US government, is the only offender. And Snowden, by reporting the crime (s) could never be committing a crime himself, as any NDA, bureaucratic or religious oath he took with his employers was immediately moot after the employers failed to abide to the ruling laws under which such agreement was made.

The laws exist exists to protect the people. One is not protecting the people while completely disregarding these laws, just by acting under classified cover and using fast-triggered "defensive" basis. Unlike such methods, laws were cooked and amended for hundreds of years to prevent surreptitious institutions from corrupting the system.

This is a lot more than telling the truth - it's getting out of the closet of being a mastermind criminal puppet. He just decided (by himself because he has the right to do so) that the paradox and loophole his employers try to create was not strong enough to make him a criminal too.

theres a drone with his name on it

[peter303]

Might as well get all his thoughts published while he has a chance.

Re:theres a drone with his name on it

[GodfatherofSoul]

Pretty sure he'll never get offed. If it happened, the heat would be on the US gov't even if it was someone else who did it. Now, if he pisses of Israel, the Mossad is going to make him a half-life ham sandwich.

I thought as a condition...

[Virtucon]

Of asylum he was supposed to stop with all of the publication of information.

A pledge not to publish more information that could harm the United States was the condition under which Putin said Snowden could receive safe harbor. "Edward assured me that he is not planning to publish any documents that blacken the American government," Anatoly Kucherena, Snowden's Russian lawyer said.

I guess we can all assume that Snowden is just a media whore looking for attention and to be honest, I think a good portion of the information being "leaked" is in fact made up. The last set of slides about the Google Data Center interception information was a sketch. Although we now know some of this information is valid, I'm starting to think that some of it is contrived. Certainly when dealing with espionage issues the notion of counter-espionage and disinformation campaigns come to into play. That way we all get confused as to actually what the US government is doing and how it's doing it. In the end we get confused about they said this and they said that and then we jump straight into the HealthCare.gov website fiasco and how Americans will lose medial insurance policies they've had and will have to get more expensive ones with higher deductibles starting in 2014. That and the government shutdown are great ways to spin this story to the back pages. Conspiracy Theorists in 10 years will look back and probably say that Snowden worked for the NSA all along and was actually spying on the Russians for the US.

Re:I thought as a condition...

[Greg01851]

He had released all the documents he had to Journalists in Hong Kong, before he went to Russia. So what we are seeing now are just being leaked by journalists. "Snowden told The New York Times in an interview published last month that he gave all of the classified documents he had obtained to journalists he met in Hong Kong, before flying to Moscow, and did not keep any copies for himself."

Re:I thought as a condition...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, OK you are either ignorant or an astroturfer. If the latter, say hi to your NSA boss man on the way out for us.

Snowden already published all of his information prior to entering Russia. All of it. To Greenwald and other dead drops around the world. He had no more, and in fact brought zero personal copies into Russia, ensuring the safety of the data. Every leak to date has been carefully doled out, not at Snowden's behest, but purely at the discretion of the journalists who actually possess it.

This manifesto is new, but objectively it is not anything that "could harm the United States" - not even possibly or remotely.

Alleging Snowden is a media whore is just hilarious when you realize what I just wrote above. The man gave one interview and left for a bastion of free speech, which is obviously Russia (the irony should not be lost on anyone). He's not been in the spotlight at all, nor has he participated in any of the releases since. He is roughly exactly as much of a media whore as Bill Watterson, the famously reclusive artist behind Calvin and Hobbes.

So please see yourself and your baseless FUD assertions that this stuff "is in fact made up" right out the door.

Re:I thought as a condition...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not some classified cable he is leaking, it is simply an opinion piece.

Re:I thought as a condition...

[Captain Coolwater]

Yeah, he fucked up by not getting his casino and hotel comps before he went public. He's a dumb ass for that reason alone.

Re:I thought as a condition...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a hunch that there is an agenda behind your words, and that you are not really being honest.

YASS

[cptnapalm]

Yet Another Snowden Story. Somebody call me when Slashdot returns. I'm exceedingly tired of the Snowden Network.

Re:YASS

[Anonymous Coward]

Nerd exploits (PWNS!) the NSA revealing apparent criminality by the US and UK governments, and provokes a major worldwide debate about technology and privacy. There is certainly no "News for Nerds" here and certainly nothing to see here. If only there was another post on /. where I could discuss something more relevant to me and my life such as a 9" display for my Raspberry Pi...

Re:YASS

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh fucking cry me a river. First off, slashdot has been in the gutter since about 2010 in my book, and it is well known the editors are fucking shit up a lot. Secondly, you do realize you can just ignore a story if you don't want to hear it, right? There are tons of repeated subjects that get brought up in /., and no one gives a fuck if you think there are too many of one type of story. Thirdly, the Snowden revelations are extremely relevant to how /. readers work and play... so why should a relevant new info about/from Snowden not be reported on.

In short, yours is a predictable response of a petulant being who wants attention and for others to publicly agree with you, not to discuss in any depth the situation at hand.

Good riddance.

Re:YASS

[magic maverick]

I'll call you. What's your number?

Re:YASS

[Anonymous Coward]

120276... can't you read?

Re:YASS

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a post about John McAfee. The conversation surrounding Snowden is actually important.

Re:YASS

[Anonymous Coward]

Id added to shill list. Thank you.

Re:YASS

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprised that anyone agrees with this. Typical /.

Re:YASS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm exceedingly tired of the Snowden Network.

Snowden Notwork for the NSA!

There is no such thing as "truth"

[vikingpower]

As much as I may hold Edward Snowden in esteem - and that is a lot of esteem, actually - I tend to get all prickly and uncomfortable when the word "truth" is used in such a pontifical way as in the "manifesto". There is no such thing as absolute truth, although Mr. Snowden seems to tacitly imply and quietly assume so. There is your truth, your way of experiencing things - and there is mine. What we call "truth" is the sum vector of all these tiny vectors.

Mr. Snowden had better used a word such as "information" or "openness". I am reminded of 2 Russian words, whose meaning lies in this direction, that became rather famous: glasnost and perestrojka.

WDYT ?

Re:There is no such thing as "truth"

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that there are often shades, perspectives, and partial information, a huge problem we have today is that people don't seek the truth. The position that there is no "truth" is as huge political hurdle to doing anything right now. What is the "truth" about climate change? What is the "truth" about spying? What is the "truth" about evolution? Even our best "truthful" models are imperfect, but we still generally agree Newtonian physics is "true" in practical application.

If we can't even agree to seek truth, which begins with "information" and "openness" but doesn't stop there, we'll never agree on what a problem is to begin with, let alone how to attack it. There is this terrible feeling I have that some, faced with the black-and-white Bush world, revolt and seek a world where there is no truth. Absolute truth? No. Not in most cases. Shades of gray? Probabilities? Allowances for bad measurement or analysis or uncertain human nature? Absolutely. But as close to truth as we can get.

Re:There is no such thing as "truth"

[GodfatherofSoul]

It's a pretty naive world view as well. The notion that the world would be better if all information was public. Companies and nations have to protect their interests. My problem with Snowden isn't the leaks about domestic spying, it's that he's taken on the mantle of Truth Warrior freeing all those choice bits of data that our silly little country wants to protect. Firstly, that's not his right to make the call. Secondly, the compromised foreign espionage has done a ton of damage to our country.

BTW, there was a report (not sure if it was linked here) that he was fired previously from a CIA job for attempting to access information in much the same way.

Re:There is no such thing as "truth"

[Uberbah]

My problem with Snowden isn't the leaks about domestic spying, it's that he's taken on the mantle of Truth Warrior freeing all those choice bits of data that our silly little country wants to protect.

No, your problem is that you not being honest. You're just looking for an excuse, any excuse at all, to dismiss the messenger in order to ignore the message. All this is rather obvious when Snowden has spent 99% of his time keeping his head down for obvious reasons. With Manning, it was the false talking point that he 'leaked documents indiscriminately'. Same crap different day.

Firstly, that's not his right to make the call.

The Oath of Office says otherwise. Funny how selective authoritarians are when talking about rules, laws, and ethics.

Secondly, the compromised foreign espionage has done a ton of damage to our country.

Again with the lack of honesty, as Snowden's revelations have shown the spying done on innocent civilians and allies. You can't say with a straight face that letting the people of Brazil know that we are spying on all of their communications, or spying on the U.N., or the personal cell phones of allied prime ministers is doing 'a ton of damage to our country'.

Elected leaders govern with the consent of their constituents. By arguing that the government should have these massive programs in secret, which blatantly violate the Constitution (funny how you don't care about those rules), you are fundamentally arguing against democracy. Furthermore, all this concern trolling over 'harming national security' was made a farce when the USG bragged about listening in on Al Qaeda conference calls, the kind of information you'd actually want to keep top secret.

This is a farce, as are the brownshirt attempts to defend it.

Re:There is no such thing as "truth"

[Anonymous Coward]

I only know one Russian word: Pravda.

Re:There is no such thing as "truth"

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as absolute truth

No, there is.

Re:There is no such thing as "truth"

[shutdown -p now]

Firstly, that's not his right to make the call.

As his leaks have so clearly demonstrated, the people who do have the right to make this call under the existing political system, are prone to abuse it, and cannot be trusted to decide in the interests of the society as a whole.

Ironically enough, if there were two distinct agencies doing foreign and domestic espionage - as there used to be back in the good old days - this wouldn't be an issue. But in NSA, the American government has created a monster - a useful one occasionally, mind you, but still prone to bouts of rage and requiring a steady diet of virgins. Now you're complaining that the guy who leaked the bit about the virgins also leaked the bit about the occasional usefulness...

GOAM...FTW!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a common trait of psychopaths and sociopaths

While that may be true, it is more so a trait of organized groups of victims, disenfranchised & those who disagree with the status quo they live under. When power becomes usurped from all but the few, a manifesto will(should) soon follow.
 
 

There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the
grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public
culture.

Aaron Swartz July 2008

why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[globaljustin]

Snowden is a dupe who was tricked into spying for global money interests.

He was high off the smell of his own farts...intellectually, *he is being reductive with the concept of government secrecy*

The response to Snowden has been mostly to blame Obama. Even though most of the privacy invading policies were polices of GEORGE W BUSH (patriot act, warrentless wiretaps, etc etc)

To falsify my point, if Snowden really was what he wants us to think he was (an honest, aw shucks I just want to help whistleblower) then he would have used his precious Wikileaks to get the information out.

Wikileaks has released tons of info secretly and Snowden sure as hell knew it existed...

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[SlippyToad]

I think Snowden as a tool is about the picture that I'm getting too.

He's a very foolish young man, and he's totally fucking ruined his life and now is trying to regain some credibility. But the sad fact is, he's also betraying his country. I do not see anything noble in what he's done: I knew everything he was saying before he said it. All he's done is pull a great big LOOOK AT MEEEEEEEE and run streaking across the public square.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the traitor, not Snowden.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[erikkemperman]

To falsify my point, if Snowden really was what he wants us to think he was (an honest, aw shucks I just want to help whistleblower) then he would have used his precious Wikileaks to get the information out.

Wait... So only if you use Wikileaks as channel you get to be an honest whistleblower, in your opinion?

Obviously there are many other ways. And the Wikileaks way didn't end very well for Chelsea Manning. Finally, I agree that GWB deserves more shit than he's being served of late, but that doesn't magically absolve BHO from maintaining and in may cases drastically extending these programs.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[TWiTfan]

I knew everything he was saying before he said it.

A lot of people did. But he offered the first undeniable PROOF.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[Thud457]

The problem is that Snowden was autisticlly gauche enough to not just say it, but release documents proving it. Bad form, old chap...

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[Agent ME]

Wait, so you're only a legitimate whistleblower if you're anonymous? I've heard many people say the opposite.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Snowden as a tool is about the picture that I'm getting too.

He's a very foolish young man, and he's totally fucking ruined his life and now is trying to regain some credibility. But the sad fact is, he's also betraying his country. I do not see anything noble in what he's done: I knew everything he was saying before he said it.

And apparently you were fine with it, too. A happy little fascist.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[deanklear]

But the sad fact is, he's also betraying his country

No, he's betraying the corrupt portion of his government that is secretly breaking the spirit and the letter of enumerated rights in the Constitution. When this practice is exercised in other nations, like in China, the US government and her sycophants celebrates speaking truth to power.

Moral truths have a funny way of disappearing when it comes to criticizing your own nation, but that is the realm of pretend patriots who are more attached to the power of the hierarchy then they are to the claimed ideals written into our laws.

As soon as someone starts talking about "betraying the nation/country/flag" it's fair to assume they want to stop talking about whatever the claimed injustice is. That's for two reasons, usually: an irrational attachment to the symbology of their nation (instead of a rational attachment to it's stated values), or because they are beneficiaries of the current status quo and they want to keep things as they are out of puerile self interest. And, as so often is the case, the injustice is so obvious that ad hominem attacks and pro-establishment propaganda that could make a fascist blush become the standard points attempting to cover the empty rhetoric. Bonus points for including a folksy cover of patriarchal finger wagging for "young men" who have "ruined" their lives by daring to claim the government is wrong. What a lovely American ideal that is.

The sad fact is that if the American government does not value due process, freedom of speech, freedom of press, and the right to privacy, it has ceased to become worthy of patriotism. The best parts of American culture and the vast majority of people who still believe in those values are worthy of protection, not the cancerous, bought-and-paid-for, corrupted bureaucracy that is slowly depriving them of those rights. Irrational nationalism is a central pillar of fascism.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[anagama]

Blame Bush Blame Bush Blame Bush Blah Blah Fucking Neocon Blah.

The expansion of Executive power under GWB was considered radical at the time.

The consolidation of that Executive coup by the Obama Administration is even worse, because what was once considered radical, is now the new normal.

It seems it has become the job of the GOP to advance the authoritarian goal line, and the job of the Democrats to get everyone to accept it.

So yeah, Obama is a terrible odious fuckhead of president. Just like GWB.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[lorenlal]

Mostly very fair points... But like the anonymous coward said above, Chelsea Manning's capture, detainment, and sentencing happened because of her actions after leaking the documents.

Could Wikileaks have handled things a little differently when releasing information? Sure.

Could Wikileaks have stopped Chelsea from talking with Lamo? Probably not.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[dasgoober]

Scuttling their chances for plausible deniability (*clutch the pearls* "THEY did what?") and The Powers That Be's ability to sweep it under the rug, as the work of some rogue faction that would be dealt with so that it would never happen again (snark), backed them into a corner where they couldn't hide.
Snowden backed some big, dangerous animals into a corner.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[erikkemperman]

Agreed.

I wasn't trying to diss WL as much as I was trying to question globaljustin's assertion that by choosing not to use WL as middle man to the press, Edward Snowden somehow proved himself to be a dishonest whistleblower (by which I took him to mean, have an agenda other than informing the public of these government programs -- I don't think many people are denying the truth of the actual contents of the leaks).

And that the reason why he might have chosen so, but that is beside the point, might be that they surely haven't been able to prevent Manning's terrible fate. Which is a large part of what they should be good at, in my book. All the more so if, as seems to be the case, the events leading up to Manning's capture happened after her contacts with WL. Of course it's possible that they tried to give him sound advice but it was ignored.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[snizzitch]

Wow. Some of your comments feel like they should be famous quotations.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[c0d3g33k]

I knew everything he was saying before he said it.

A lot of people did. But he offered the first undeniable PROOF.

Did he really? In the absence of independent confirmation, he didn't offer undeniable proof. Just a bunch of electronic documents of unknown provenance. I don't think it would be too hard to invent plausible-sounding documents, since people constantly claim they "knew" it all anyway. Without independent confirmation from, say, other whistleblowers independently producing the same or similar information (or even better video or audio showing government officials discussing the spying programs), it just seemed plausible. The real proof was provided by the reaction of those that recognized the documents and were too stupid to just shut up for awhile and see if it blows over.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[TWiTfan]

he didn't offer undeniable proof. Just a bunch of electronic documents of unknown provenance.

If that's the case, you had better let the U.S. Government know that they're falsely prosecuting for violation of the Espionage Act.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people did. But he offered the first undeniable PROOF.

BS. Where's the proof? I have no proof. A pdf of a Powerpoint presentation? That proof is just him talking to some journalists... the same ones that on any other day you think are harebrained idiots. It's just a slightly more informed version of gossip and paranoia.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[cheekyjohnson]

I'd say the real proof isn't in the actual leaks, but in the government's response to them.

And I hardly think it's paranoia to think that the government is doing what it's fully capable of doing, and doing so in relative secrecy.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[shutdown -p now]

That was precisely his point:

The real proof was provided by the reaction of those that recognized the documents and were too stupid to just shut up for awhile and see if it blows over.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[Magius_AR]

The response to Snowden has been mostly to blame Obama. Even though most of the privacy invading policies were polices of GEORGE W BUSH (patriot act, warrentless wiretaps, etc etc)

Obama extended the Patriot Act in both 2006 and 2011. The fact you still continue to try to assign blame to Bush some 5 years later is both sad and telling for the Obama shill that you must be.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[cbiltcliffe]

But the sad fact is, he's also betraying his country.

Do not confuse "government" and "country." This is the propaganda that the powers that be like to spread.

The country is (among other things) the ideals the country stands for, and laws, including the constitution, that uphold those ideals.
The government is a bunch of people who may or may not support those ideals, and may or may not break laws upholding those ideals when it suits them.

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[alexgieg]

I do not see anything noble in what he's done

This means you operate at stage 4 in Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning:

"Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule's appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned. (...) In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force."

While Snowden is probably at stage 5:

"The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual’s own perspective may take precedence over society’s view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. (...) In Stage five (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that do not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to meet “the greatest good for the greatest number of people”. This is achieved through majority decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning."

Re:why didnt Snowden use Wikileaks???

[Anonymous Coward]

But the sad fact is, he's also betraying his country.

He had to betray his country to save it.

because your comment was useless.

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

Hey mods, why is my post considered any more "flamebait" than those of Snowden supporters?

Because all you did is call him a nutjob. You've added nothing to the conversation, other than an insult.

Re:because your comment was useless.

[cheekyjohnson]

I don't think much more needs to be said about Snowden himself at this point; he's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The bigger issue is... the actual leaks, and what they reveal.

Re:because your comment was useless.

[shutdown -p now]

One is deserved, the other is not.

Sometimes white is white and black is black, and it's really as simple as that.

Re:because your comment was useless.

[shutdown -p now]

We can prove this by the simple fact that he didn't raise his concerns within the organization, nor with his local representatives, nor with Federal government representatives.

No, you cannot prove it that way. There have been other people in NSA who tried to raise it through "proper channels", and the only thing it did is ruin their career. Snowden knew about them.

Re:because your comment was useless.

[shutdown -p now]

Verify what, the existence of such people? They have came out with that story publicly. Or the fact that Snowden was aware of their existence? Again, it was all publicized, unless he was living in a basement all along he would have known.

Heck, just googling for "other NSA whistleblowers" will give you a few more names right away.

Re:because your comment was useless.

[shutdown -p now]

You're right that Snowden didn't name any names, but he did explicitly say in an interview that he decided to leak the way he did because, from his experience, "working through the chain of command would only lead to retribution". Given that all these others stories are public, it all seems pretty clear cut to me, with the simplest explanation that he was well aware (indeed, as soon as he started even contemplating the leaks, it would be very strange indeed if he didn't go and read up on other whistleblowers' experience... unless you're suggesting that he is also a clinical idiot). The onus would be on you to prove that he was somehow unaware, given all this.

What will you do with the truth?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't find the argument for truth particularly strong, since the same could be said about gathering intelligence. Surveillance just logs the truth, even though the methods may be illegal.

The difference, I think, is in intent. Is intelligence gathered for military advantage, political advantage, or for money? Is whistleblowing for the public good, to sabatoge or aid the enemy in war, or for some personal benefit?

I don't think many people disagree on which of these is a crime.

To tell the truth is not a crime?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of an abundance of carefulness, our politicians still try staying away from it as far as possible. They did not get voted into office for saying the truth, and they won't change horses in mid-term.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

because of who commits it

[schlachter]

because of who commits the original crime.

Re:Capitalism by MickyTheIdiot (1032226)

[macraig]

The problem in the US is that the debate is controlled by idiots... and calling them idiots is being nice.

This coming from a self-named idiot making public comments on the topic....

uh, oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

all the bad guys had manifestos.. ya know, terrorists, serial killers and psycho bombers. the feds will now stop at nothing to get his ass lit up for a guided missile, the sovereignty of russia be damned... didn't keep them out of pakistan, iraq or panama, did it.

Stupid question time

[Xaedalus]

I get why Snowden blew the whistle on the NSA and it's domestic spying programs. That needs to be addressed pronto. But can someone explain to me how revealing our normal espionage program against our allies and against rivals is supposed to convince our allies and rivals to open up about their own spying programs? How on earth is any of this going to convince the Russian and/or the Chinese electorate to demand transparency of their own governments' monitoring systems? Especially when said governments haven't even bothered to hide that they're doing so? Snowden keeps referring to spying and information control as a global problem, but how does he hope to convince the nations who always have engaged in blatant population control to stop doing so?

Re:Stupid question time

[GodfatherofSoul]

It won't. It's a stupid idealists view of how espionage works. I'm guessing he thinks everyone is now going to hold hands, open up the books, and dance around a campfire together.

Re:Stupid question time

[Anonymous Coward]

It will convince other governments to move very slowly in helping the US get Snowden back. It's just his way of covering his ass.

Re:Stupid question time

[shutdown -p now]

No, I'm guessing that what he thinks is that now the public at large in foreign countries finally and completely stop believing in the "land of the free" US propaganda that pitches itself as leader of the free world and some such, and will take their governments to account for not representing the interests of their nation, as opposed to some nebulous pseudo-alliance with US at head (and enjoying most of the benefits).

Re:Stupid question time

[Anonymous Coward]

Drip, drip, drip. When this was all first talked about, the germans (and european populations as a whole) looked vaguely ill but said this is the sort of thing people do. As things kept dripping, more awareness was raised (as opposed to all of it coming out in a lump, to be pushed aside when a health care website failed or bomb goes off).

The idea is that at least with information, people can make a choice... but it's really hard to penetrate the populace with. Right now, the germans might be angry and upset about the USA listening in (some political theater, some real) while still being fairly ignorant that their own governments are doing the same thing. As more things drip, the odds of it reaching a tipping point become higher.

As for Russia and China, I don't understand why you'd think any of this was really about them, it isn't as though the Chinese don't know there's a giant firewall.

The TRUTH

[rubypossum]

This will only happen if WE win.

Re:Adrian Lamo

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks way didn't end very well for Chelsea Manning.

I'm really not feeling Wikileaks culpability in that clusterfuck.

Re:Um, Nobody has been reading the news.

[Artagel]

Like the building of the healthcare website, the management of the IRS non-profit review function, or lots of other government operations have great oversight either.

The politicians elected to run the government want to play politics, not actually run the government. So that is what they do.

When my alderman (probably councilman in your city) failed to deliver adequate city services, she was voted out of office. That does not happen higher than the city level.

People in power?

[Anonymous Coward]

I especially liked the part where they told him that he did it wrong, that telling the newspapers was bad.

The correct course of action was to call the people in power [...]

In a democracy, the people in power are supposed to be the general populace, and one informs them via newspapers. So he did follow the correct course of action for informing the people in power.

Either that, or the U.S.A. is a totalitarian regime only painting itself as a democracy.

Take your pick.

Ignorance

[s.petry]

Capitalism promotes selfishness.

No it does not, correlation != causation and all that. Human nature is to hoard, and any society that has an economic system without impartial regulation will allow for the hoarders to hoard. The more unfair the system, the more you will see economic disparity. To blame "Capitalism" ignores every other form of economics we see today which all have massive separation between the "have's" and "have not". Communism is just as bad as Capitalism with this, and if you have any doubts head on over to China and Russia and see how they are fairing. Just as bad or worse than the USA, and neither of them use the Capitalist system of Economics. Where they have allowed experimental Capitalism we hear about how "Chun" and "Vladimir" have become wealthy and the Government comes in at a certain point and takes it all over, moving that generated wealth into the same hands that are controlling the rest of the economy.

Selfishness promotes control.

Chicken and Egg scenario. Power in too few hands is the real problem. Few in history have ever used power to help the masses, most in history have used their power for self interests. Power comes in many forms, but the greatest by far is knowledge. Socrates stated correctly that for society to succeed the masses must be highly educated in Philosophy and Rhetoric. This is in addition to other knowledge that a person would need for their job or daily life. As countries like the US have removed those classes from public education, you also see the selfish excel. They can, because a person today has difficulty recognizing even basic appeals to emotion, let alone complex manipulations in rhetoric.

Control of information is a type of control.

Again, you are confusing power and the word "control".

Control of the government is another type of control.

Control == Control obviously. As with previously mentioned items you should be trying to relate things to "Power". If you have friends in Government then you have power. You can define laws, create exceptions, legalize abuses that you can afford, and legalize morality that you can afford or your buddies can do that for you.

So powerful people will control both.

Wrong again, people in power will use that power to gain more power. This has nothing to do with Capitalism, it has everything to do with human nature. Every form of Government and Economic system has seen the same exact challenge. Mercantilism failed for the same reason Capitalism is failing. Not because the system is bad, but because the systems are full of corruption.

And so the modern role of signals intelligence: to watch you, to separate the majority who are of no consequence, from the minority who run a serious risk of making a difference.

The solution is a scaling back of capitalism. And not a replacement with Soviet state capitalism, either, even though their surveillance had nothing on modern UKUSA.

If you are wrong about the problem being "Capitalism" your solution can not be correct. The problem is corruption, and the solution is to wake people up and clean up the corruption. This happened in Rome and gave them a couple hundred more years. This happened in France and we saw France become a prosperous place for nearly 2 centuries. Cleaning corruption was also the reason that the USA was founded. We did good to make it this long without having to wake people up to take out the trash, but the time is a bit overdue.

Re:Ignorance

[Joining Yet Again]

Human nature is to hoard,

Says who? In what sense? Partly discussed by other posters.

any society that has an economic system without impartial regulation will allow for the hoarders to hoard

"impartial regulation" undefined. And why would a system with impartial regulation stop hoarders from hoarding?

To blame "Capitalism"

I was blaming too much capitalism, 'cos that's what we have right now. That's why I suggested scaling it back. Most of your post is based on a straw man.

Communism is

Communism never has been. Leninism degenerated quickly into state capitalism - what happens if one business owns almost everything?

Again, you are confusing power and the word "control".

Control is the conduit for power. As you indicate, exploiting others' ignorance is another way to achieve power - but, again, it's because it's easier to control the ignorant.

Re:Ignorance

[s.petry]

Human nature is to hoard,

Says who? In what sense? Partly discussed by other posters.

Greed is something we have discussed in Philosophy for thousands of years. It's not a new concept and has been discussed since the time we could record information up through Friedman. Governments have been charged over and over again through history with trying to limit and/or restrict greed. See what I stated regarding France and the founding of the USA for easy examples.

How nice of you to negate the primary point of that paragraph however. If Capitalism is at fault why has _every_ economic system seen the same issues when power gets entrenched? You can't answer that, so avoid it because it hurts your "capitalism is bad" statements?

"impartial regulation" undefined. And why would a system with impartial regulation stop hoarders from hoarding?

If regulations are applied to everyone uniformly, that would not be "impartial". To claim "impartial regulation" needs to be defined is idiocy. As with the first, you ignore the premise of my statements to back your conclusion that capitalism is bad statements. You don't believe corruption is the problem, it's "capitalism" right?

Communism never has been. Leninism degenerated quickly into state capitalism - what happens if one business owns almost everything?

You are claim that Communism is using the Capitalist economic system! With an ignorant and biased statement like "Leninism degenerated into capitalism" I'm staggered that you would write such a blatant lie. I think you should do some studying, because Communism does NOT use Capitalism as it's main form of economy. As I stated there have been experiments which get pulled back into the Party once there has been enough success.

Control is the conduit for power. As you indicate, exploiting others' ignorance is another way to achieve power - but, again, it's because it's easier to control the ignorant.

Control is not just a conduit for power. If one has no power how can they assert control? I think we agree on the premise that knowledge is a form of power, and that people use this for greed. That said, you may disagree with "greed" at which I'll tell you to go back and read a whole lot of Philosophy starting with Plato and moving up through Marx. I can't catch you up on that much education in a sentence or post here.

I countered everything you stated, there were no straw men. My points all had merit, and if you read them you can debate those points. Capitalism is no more a problem than claiming Republicans are the problem with the US Government. It's a nonsense way of avoiding discussion of the root issue. In the case of the economy the problem is corruption and condensation of power. The problems in the Government are from that same exact thing.

Re:Ignorance

[Joining Yet Again]

Greed is something we have discussed in Philosophy for thousands of years.

Yes. But you said it was 1) human nature; to 2) hoard.

If Capitalism is at fault why has _every_ economic system seen the same issues when power gets entrenched? You can't answer that, so avoid it because it hurts your "capitalism is bad" statements?

You're having trouble with your reading comprehension. Let me present a dialogue for you:

Prima: Too much fat in your diet is bad for you. Here are some of the problems with too much fat...

Secunda: How can you say that fat is the problem? Carbs make me overweight too. Some fat is essential for the body!

Does this help?

To claim "impartial regulation" needs to be defined is idiocy.

Yes, to require a precise definition of terms is like an armadillo in a dress.

You don't believe corruption is the problem, it's "capitalism" right?

Corruption will always be there. I never said that capitalism was the problem. You're obviously a religious capitalist and have to construct and tear down this straw man at every opportunity in the name of the Invisible Hand.

You are claim that Communism is using the Capitalist economic system!

We're talking about the USSR, not communism. "The USSR was communist therefore it wasn't state capitalist," is not an argument.

If one has no power how can they assert control?

They can't, unless someone assigns it. And there's one big problem with capitalism: an underclass with no control, therefore no power, therefore no control... so too much capitalism is bad.

I countered everything you stated, there were no straw men.

Nope. You just started an argument you obviously enjoy having :D.

Re:Ignorance

[s.petry]

I think you need to look up the concept of greed since it's not a singular thing like "red". Greed would lead to numerous things such as hoarding, harming others for personal gain, etc... Nitpicking a definition does not change a thing, it makes you look silly.

Your ad hoc dialogue trying to compare an economy to a diet is not rational. You still ignore the premises that I gave. 1. Corruption is the root of the problem, not Capitalism. 2. A function of Government is supposed to regulate and prevent power vacuums.

Corruption will always be there. I never said that capitalism was the problem. You're obviously a religious capitalist and have to construct and tear down this straw man at every opportunity in the name of the Invisible Hand.

Here you are claiming that we should accept corruption in order to remove it from the dialogue. That is a ludicrous claim you realize. Corruption in capitalism leads to unfair laws and unfair treatment. In other systems that corruption is built in and leads to unfair laws and unfair treatment. In both cases corruption is the problem, not the economic system being leveraged. You don't deny the corruption in any system, you simply say "they are all corrupt so fuck it" which does not take it away, it stalls the inevitable cleaning up of the corruption.

You are claim that Communism is using the Capitalist economic system!

We're talking about the USSR, not communism. "The USSR was communist therefore it wasn't state capitalist," is not an argument.

You stated that "Leninism degenerated into capitalism". You were not talking about the USSR, and now you deny your own words! I smell a strong delusional force!

They can't, unless someone assigns it. And there's one big problem with capitalism: an underclass with no control, therefore no power, therefore no control... so too much capitalism is bad.

So China and Russia have no underclass? No controlling class? You may wish to try again, because you are again blaming capitalism for corruption. Read what John Adams wrote and get back to us. In fact read what Marx wrote. You are trying to assign blame where it can't be assigned.

Nope. You just started an argument you obviously enjoy having :D.

Only a half truth. Primarily I stated several corrections to your premises. I do have a tremendous amount of knowledge on the subject and do enjoy the subjects or would not have such knowledge.

Re:Ignorance

[Joining Yet Again]

Greed would lead to numerous things such as hoarding, harming others for personal gain, etc...

*could. And the fact that it might doesn't show that man's inherent nature is to hoard. That's a statement of psychology, not philosophy.

Your ad hoc dialogue trying to compare an economy to a diet is not rational.

I'm illustrating how the straw man appeared in the structure of your argument. I think you're either not very bright, or trolling :/.

You still ignore the premises that I gave. 1. Corruption is the root of the problem, not Capitalism. 2. A function of Government is supposed to regulate and prevent power vacuums.

1. That's as vacuous as saying "imperfection is the root of the problem". What allows corruption to happen?
2. Yes.
You're debating like a freshman. We all understand the big picture. Focus on the detail.

So China and Russia have no underclass? No controlling class?

What has that got to do with anything? Read what I actually said, and nothing more.

You may wish to try again, because you are again blaming capitalism for corruption.

You're the one focusing on "capitalism" rather than the amount of capitalism. You're the one who wants to reframe the argument in terms of this nebulous "corruption" - and now you're also telling me what I think is its cause?

You stated that "Leninism degenerated into capitalism". You were not talking about the USSR, and now you deny your own words! I smell a strong delusional force!

Is English not your native language? The "and now you deny your own words!" is stilted and unconnected.

I do have a tremendous amount of knowledge on the subject

And I recently completed a Masters dissertation on the philosophy of mathematics, supervised by a top name in his field. Does this matter to the argument? No, not at all.

Re:Ignorance

[s.petry]

Where your thinker is broken is trying to claim that you can have variable amounts of capitalism. You don't! That's like saying we need more Justice. It's illogical, because you either have it or you don't.

Are you really trying to state that we need more regulation? Even handling of economic laws? Justice in prosecuting wrong doing by large businesses? All of those things are viable statements, but none of them change the economic system to "less capitalism" or "more capitalism", we would still be "capitalism".

Or are you arguing that China has a better system? Russia has a better system? You want to move to a "Market Socialism" like China?

You falsely claimed that Russia failed because of capitalism, and it was _never_ using a capitalist economy. It was using State controlled economy just like under Stalin and Lenin. Where they had "social experiments" in capitalism (their terms not mine) if there was success the state took everything over. Those were small isolated bubbles and not the whole economy.

As with Capitalism you can't argue that you need more or less State controlled either. It's one or the other, it can't be part way. If you want to use the experiments as an argument point, think! The state always had control, hence they could pull the plug at will. The Russians figured that game out pretty quickly! You lose!

Re:Ignorance

[Joining Yet Again]

Where your thinker is broken is trying to claim that you can have variable amounts of capitalism. You don't! That's like saying we need more Justice. It's illogical, because you either have it or you don't.

Sigh, zealots.

Go back to reading and playing with your Fountainhead.

SPOOK

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden, strieks YET AGAIN without retaliation on himself, and the propaganda mainstream media is all over it. Snowden has got to be a government plant.

How to make a martyr....

[Anonymous Coward]

Do i have to say the obvious? Well done Obama, instead of solving the problem as a normal person, on the table, and with respect, you just got in the history books.

He needs to remember..

[Anonymous Coward]

...how it went for the last guy who holed-up in a secure setting and released a manifesto...

There's an Alpha Centauri quote for everything

[qeveren]

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he [sic] who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

- Commissioner Pravin Lal

text of Patriot Act freely publicly available

[globaljustin]

But he offered the first undeniable PROOF.

wrong.

anyone can go online or to the local library and read the Patriot Act for themselves...

same for this article: "NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls" from **2006** http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

That's all the proof necessary. Snowden revealed **operational details** of programs everyone could have look at!!!

Knowing that it's called 'Prism' isn't functionally value-added information...it's just technical details...**we all knew since the fucking Patriot Act***

ultimatums

[Anonymous Coward]

"To tell the truth is not a crime.'"

Sounds like a ultimatum, and we all know most things that said to be absolute are not quite absolute. Crimes are judged, that's social law of the modern world. He obviously disagrees and is opposes the system.

Ya know Lincoln comment on this -

[raque]

When he said that "you can't fool all of the people all of the time". Which is just a version of the the genus of crowds. Toss in Crowd Sourcing ... just because.

And what has the crowd, the American Public, said about Snowden's comments on the aggressiveness of the NSA? "Yawn. It's nice to know were getting our money's worth out of them."

I think Americans think of it this way: "You can have either a hunting dog, or a lap dog. You can't get a dog that's both. If you have a hunting dog, it's going to get out sometimes and chase stuff. I'm not going to be angry that the hunting dog is hunting. I'll think about a new leash, tomorrow. I'm too busy doing other stuff today. Oh, and by the way, telling the truth, sometimes, is a crime."

For me, I agree with the American people. As for his concerns that his supervisors would punish him for speaking out - they very well might have. There are two other branches of government. The NSA has critics in the Congress and the Courts. He should have exhausted his other options before this. Failing to do so is a crime and he should be punished for it. It is the same as refusing to report a crime because you're convinced the police are corrupt. Did you try the State Police? The FBI?

Next question, will I be modded down as flamebait because someone disagrees with me?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Wow, a lot of patriots here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats, Snowden!

No, not Edward, I mean Snowden the father. Congrats for doing a great job in raising a decent, honest human being who could have chosen to act according to what was Right.

I'm proud and humbled, because I don't know if I would have the courage your son has shown.

Thank you both, father and son, for making such a costly decision for the benefit of humanity.

And, as a father myself of a little kid, it scares me just to think how it would affect me, were I in your place. Again, my deep respect and admiration for your son's attitude.

PS: Just for disclosure, I should remark I am a US national and was benefited by Mr. Snowden revelations.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

manifest truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Would this work? >: Make it a criminal offence for a politician to speak untruth or withhold information on any subject [?or any which might relate to government?] when requested for it (?in open forum?) (?or in Congress or any public event?) - or in any letter(?). Would that fix it? [lying statements in Congress etc would not be free from prosecution, having the status of perjury].

Movie Remake

[Dabido]

Can't wait for the USA to remake the movie 'Mister Smith Goes To Washington' as 'Mister Smith Is A Terrorist'.

I don't know why everyone's up in arms about this

[jennatalia]

I, for one, welcome our NSA overlord masters.

In Russia

[GPTurismo]

A Manifesto of Truth, written in Russia, am I the only one that finds the Irony in this?

Re:Wow, a lot of patriots here... MISSING A NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

> PS: Just for disclosure, I should remark I am a US national and was benefited by Mr. Snowden revelations.

Sorry, I was tired and a word went missing: "I should remark I am NOT a US national"

That is what I meant, as it's important to note that I'm not influenced by such worries as US nationals may have. In spite of that, I do think Snowden is being a good US citizen in exposing things which need to be corrected for the benefit of country. Seeing youths with that kind of moral strength really renews my faith in mankind.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion