Snowden Says His Mission Is Accomplished

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Edward Snowden met with reporters from the Washington Post for fourteen hours and in his first interview since June reflected at length about surveillance, democracy and the meaning of the documents he exposed. 'For me, in terms of personal satisfaction, the mission's already accomplished. I already won,' says Snowden. 'All I wanted was for the public to be able to have a say in how they are governed. That is a milestone we left a long time ago. Right now, all we are looking at are stretch goals.' Snowden says that the NSA's business is 'information dominance,' the use of other people's secrets to shape events. But Snowden upended the agency on its own turf. 'You recognize that you're going in blind, that there's no model,' says Snowden, acknowledging that he had no way to know whether the public would share his views. 'But when you weigh that against the alternative, which is not to act, you realize that some analysis is better than no analysis. Because even if your analysis proves to be wrong, the marketplace of ideas will bear that out.' Snowden succeeded because the NSA, accustomed to watching without being watched, faces scrutiny it has not endured since the 1970s, or perhaps ever, and says people who accuse him of disloyalty mistake his purpose. 'I am not trying to bring down the NSA, I am working to improve the NSA. I am still working for the NSA right now. They are the only ones who don't realize it.'"

Comments

Well, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not wearing a jumpsuit and standing on an aircraft carrier with a banner behind him.

Re:Well, at least

[CanHasDIY]

He's not wearing a jumpsuit and standing on an aircraft carrier with a banner behind him.

Damn, I was about to say the complete opposite: Until I see pics of Snowden in a jumpsuit on an aircraft carrier with a banner behind him, I don't buy it.

Re:Well, at least

[rossdee]

In Soviet Russia aircraft carrier lands on YOU

and since its that time of year
(to the tune of Chritmas is a coming)

Noun verbs you
Gentlemen
Noun verbs you
In Soviet Russia
Noun verbs YOU

Re:Well, at least

[RDW]

He's not wearing an orange jumpsuit in a stress position with razor wire in front of him either.

Avoiding this indefinitely is probably one of the 'stretch goals' he mentions.

Re:Well, at least

[Vitriol Angst]

Snowden isn't the only person who took a risk, the person stuffing that jumpsuit had to put some contents under pressure -- they risked losing their face. Much less the satellite based death beams cued to their DNA that will destroy them if they ever divulge secrets about "operation cod piece."

Re:Well, at least

[cold fjord]

It's probably closer to say that Snowden works with carrier waves, not carriers on the waves.

Re:Well, at least

[MickyTheIdiot]

I didn't realize any members of Bush's communications department had slashdot accounts!

Re:Well, at least

[Phusion]

I was hoping someone would go there with the whole Mission Accomplished. I was actually hoping for a shop of Edward on the aircraft carrier, then I remembered this isn't reddit.

Re:Well, at least

[cold fjord]

He actually is in a stressful position behind razor wire, but fashion choices available in Russia have expanded since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Old Soviet fashion show.

Re:Well, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not wearing an orange jumpsuit in a stress position with razor wire in front of him either.

Avoiding this indefinitely is probably one of the 'stretch goals' he mentions.

Staying out of prison is generally considered a goal of most people, so I do not really get what you are trying to say.

Re:Well, at least

[ShaunC]

I didn't realize any members of Bush's communications department had slashdot accounts!

MickyTheIdiot, meet cold fjord. cold, Micky...

Re:Well, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

Well to be fair to Bush, he was right. He was aiming for decades of civil war and anarchy along with a huge upswing in terrorism, even if it was localized in the Middle East. And he got it.

Re:Well, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, now, that's unfair to our dear cold fjord. While Bush certainly makes him the wettest, he loves groveling before any authority, and has wrote many a panegyric to Obama (in his capacity as the chief of staff and the enabler of the NSA) as well.

Re:Well, at least

[Anonymous Coward]

Stopped taking your meds for the holidays?

Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden is a real hero. I am sorry he can't be home for the holidays this year because of his sacrifice.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this flamebait? NSA voting again?

Re:Right On

[CanHasDIY]

giving the shallow-thinking right-wing a scapegoat.

Yea, amazing how short-sighted and narcissistic the typical American voter is, huh?

Like, when Bush II was in charge, setting up all these bullshit draconian laws, the self-proclaimed "liberals" wouldn't shut up about how horrible America would become if we allowed said policies to go into place. Flash forward 7 years - now it's the "liberal" guy in office, and suddenly all those horrible policies aren't considered so horrible after all... Unless, of course, you're a self-proclaimed "conservative," in which case letting "your guy's" laws fall into the hands of the "other guy" is the worst fucking thing to happen in American history.

Land of the free, alright - free of the ability to form cogent fucking thoughts.

Re:Right On

[pellik]

Land of the free, alright - free of the ability to form cogent fucking thoughts.

There are plenty of smart people here who can form cogent thoughts. However we do seem to be free of the ambition to do so.

Re: Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus! How many bales of hay did you use on all those strawmen?

Re:Right On

[anagama]

This drove me so crazy. The most perfect example of how rotten Democrats are, is Marty Lederman, who excoriated the Bush administration for using secret legal memos to authorize due process free detention, but who upon admittance to the Obama team, began writing the secret legal memos to justify due process free execution.

This is why I'm not a Democrat anymore --- evil is evil no matter who does it. The Democratic party's silence on the fact that Obama has embraced and extended every GWB policy they once complained about, has made me understand that GOP and DNC are purely tribal organizations with absolutely no basis in rationality, morality, or even a consistent kind of crazy. They're just teams working toward the same neo-con goals. I will never vote for anyone who is a member of either party.

Re: Right On

[jodido]

Www.themilitant.com

Re:Right On

[Vitriol Angst]

"Flash forward 7 years - now it's the "liberal" guy in office, and suddenly all those horrible policies aren't considered so horrible after all..."

>> Liberal voter here. Nope -- I'm still pissed. I'm surprised the "Liberal media" wasn't informing you how troubled we are with Obama doing these things as well.

I held my nose and voted for Obama. What was my option here? Gordon Gecko? You think whichever boob we put in office isn't going to have these policies?

The reason Domestic spying is so bad is that they can use it to extort politicians, leaders and the media into compliance. Not that they need that with the way politicos have to thank zero interest loans from banks for affording office, and media personalities being titillating rather than educational.

So I don't think anyone is "OK" with this, other than people who say; "I'm OK with this -- thank you for defending my freedom!" And I think those people are idiots. I happen to know quite a few Liberals and Democrats and not many idiots. I've seen more conservatives "OK" with this domestic spying from my anecdotal experience. Not that it is productive getting in a tit-for-tat spat.

If impeaching Obama would end this -- I'd be for it. But really we need what we've always needed; campaign finance reform. Most corruption starts and ends with that.

Re:Right On

[MightyYar]

We have a serious problem with critical thinking in this country. If there is a good way to test for it, they should add it to these standardized tests that they teach to.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

What was my option here?

Third parties. If you think not voting for evil is a wasted vote, then that mindset makes you part of the problem. The only wasted vote is one that goes towards evil, and both both parties are provably evil.

At the very least, you'll be helping to send a message to the two main parties.

Re:Right On

[TheNastyInThePasty]

The first past the post voting system in America will always reinforce the two party setup we have. Third party voting can send a message in a lopsided election but in anything close, it's dangerous. It is arguably the reason we even had GWB in the first place. Gore probably would have won had he not lost so many votes to the Green party.

Of course, the ones in power are the ones benefiting most from this arrangement, so it's unlikely to change.

Re:Right On

[MickyTheIdiot]

ah... I see that since I left out the "left" in my post that everyone goes stupid-nuts and assumes I was letting them off the hook.

Way to go... you've all once again shown that most people can't think beyond false dilemmas right now. Go look at my other posts where I say both Bush and Obama have screwed civil liberties in the U.S.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making the mistake of treating a mass of people as if they were one coherent person. Liberals do it too. Glenn Beck said this and some other dingbat said a contradictory statement therefore the conservatives aren't consistant.

If you actually care and aren't just trying to score political points, many liberals dispose what Holder and the Obama administration in general has allowed to continue. Obama is definitely not a lefty in that regard.

Re:Right On

[CanHasDIY]

He's a criminal, not a hero. The ends do NOT justify the means. He should be in a US prison for the rest of his life.

Let's extrapolate that to a different, historical scenario, shall we?

[George Washington]'s a criminal, not a hero. The ends do NOT justify the means. He should be in a [British Imperial] prison for the rest of his life.

Do you still feel the same way? Keep in mind, many people actually died as a result of Gen. Washington's decision to commit treason against the crown.

Re:Right On

[DuckDodgers]

Seconded. I consider myself pretty firmly a political liberal... and I won't be voting for the Democrats in any national election. I still vote the person, not the party, at the state and local level.

Re:Right On

[swillden]

I will never vote for anyone who is a member of either party.

Unfortunately, this position constitutes opting out of the political process. Duverger's Law means that it's vanishingly unlikely that any third party candidate will achieve any notable political power. If you really want to change things you have to work within the two-party system, which means you need to pick a party and get involved with it, working to push its policies in the right direction.

Re:Right On

[gtall]

You are reading too much into the Democrats. They backed the Bush policies because they suddenly found they'd be held responsible if things went badly. They got scared and decided the Bush policies were just the ticket to prevent the backlash because then they can say they did everything they could.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

Land of the free, alright - free of the ability to form cogent fucking thoughts.

There are plenty of smart people here who can form cogent thoughts. However we do seem to be free of the ambition to do so.

Here's a cogent thought for you: Try as hard as you want for as long as you want, nothing of signifigance will change (though you may get some minor "shows" of change). "Convince" all your neighbors, go "grassroots", or any of the other "things can change if people would only try" drivel that people spout. Look, I'm an optimist, but I'm not stupid. I can move tomorrow a fix it all for myself and my family (or maybe that plan takes a year or two). You have two options: leave or stay.

The clever and realistic (no, not pessimists) quietly will stay or leave and invest their energy in things that have a good return on investment here locally. But one of those things will rarely be changing anything because it's rigged so you cannot. We're living in a US sized coal mine, there is a company store and enforcers, and most people are more worried about you teaching your kids the wrong things rather than what's wrong with the system. The US is designed just as those company stores were: so you can't f'ing change anything and even may have a very hard time leaving.

Re:Right On

[cold fjord]

Keep in mind, many people actually died as a result of Gen. Washington's decision to commit treason against the crown.

Washington's actions paid off rather handsomely, many times over. The bill for Snowden's actions hasn't been presented yet, and it will take years to tally. It is far from clear that the reward will justify the cost in the long run.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, the conservatives were opposed to overreach with Bush Jr. too, but the liberal media wouldn't tell you that.

Re:Right On

[Immerman]

Yes we do. I'm rather frightened by the idea of teaching to the government's idea of optimal critical thinking though. What if it were to succeed?

Re:Right On

[CanHasDIY]

I'll give you credit for admitting that only history can decide whether or not Snowden is worthy of the hero label.

Re:Right On

[anagama]

I vote third party and if no third party candidate is available, for my cat. There is no other way to lodge a protest vote because we don't have a "none of the above" and not voting simply lumps you in with the apathetic.

I'm not so focused on picking a victor, because when the choice of Victor A (R) v. Victor B (D) results in exactly the same policies, I don't care which one wins and won't let my vote be seen as comprising some mandate for the asshole. Secondly, you simply cannot create change in a party by saying "I disagree with you, but I'll vote for you anyway." That's a sort of insanity. And as for creating some change within a party, look at how that worked out for the Kucinich people in the DNC or the Ron Paul people in the GOP. It simply doesn't work.

The deepest rot in American politics, is the voters' reluctance to vote their conscience and instead, feel like they need to be on a winning side. This is the sure fire way to lose in the end.

Re:Right On

[nitehawk214]

I'll give you credit for admitting that only history can decide whether or not Snowden is worthy of the hero label.

As well as the villain label.

Re:Right On

[TheNastyInThePasty]

Whether or not his actions were worth it largely depends on how we view him NOW. If we dismiss him as a criminal, nothing will change and his efforts were for naught. If we treat him as a hero by recognizing the unconstitutional actions of the NSA as wrong, we can force a change to happen.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

No, "those people," who are grateful that the government provides a degree of security in which to practice their liberty are *not* idiots. That's your problem: As long as you see yourself as smarter than "them" you will not understand what "they" need and want.

And yes, they do the same thing and see you as "those people."

But both of you perpetuate the system and allow those who are really smarter than both of you to manipulate y'all into giving those puppet masters the control.

So congratulations on getting the government you deserve.

So I don't think anyone is "OK" with this, other than people who say; "I'm OK with this -- thank you for defending my freedom!" And I think those people are idiots.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you are exacerbating the problem.

Don't hold your nose and vote for anyone. Vote your conscience, because at this point voting party lines is contributing to the problem.

For the record, I grew up in a very Republican household. I knew, and know, so many conservatives that were *very* upset with the Bush administration starting a war and taking away personal freedoms. However, many did what you have done- they voted party lines, because the were convinced that the other side was worse. They, like you and your ilk, contribute to the problem.

"Throwing your vote away" when you vote for a third party is just a tripe used to keep you voting for the same policies and policy makers.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

it's dangerous.

What's dangerous is when fools vote to maintain the status quo in perpetuity because they're scared of the Democrat/Republican bogeyman, and your attitude highlights that. As I said, the only wasted vote is a vote for evil. If voting for third parties means that the bogeymen might win once in a while, suck it up, princess; think in the long term.

Most people are indeed short-sighted idiots...

Re:Right On

[anagama]

How am I reading too much? GWB did evil shit. Obama does the same evil shit and more. I don't care _why_ the parties do what they do, I only care _that_ they do it.

To put this in a bad slashdot car analogy, I wouldn't care why a driver totally blitzed on vodka and blow plowed into a crosswalk full of people, I'd only care that he did, and I'd want to see him punished -- even if his mother died the night before, that would be completely beside the point.

Re:Right On

[WaywardGeek]

I vote hero. This would make in interesting Slashdot poll. I was hoping Snowden's intentions were to help us decide for ourselves how to be governed, rather than just being PO-ed at his boss. This interview convinced me. Definitely hero.

Besides violating our constitutional right to privacy, our government is now in the routine buisiness of lying to us. They're passing secret laws that force companies to help them spy on us, with gag orders preventing these companies from complaining about it. They follow us through our phones, and ignore laws restricting their powers. At what point does the government work for us rather than the other way around? At least in China everyone knows they're being spied on. There's no secrecy about that fact.

I don't want another 9/11 attack to occur, and I'm willing to give up a little privacy to help. I do believe the NSA is primarily focused on protecting Americans. However, I want a vote on just how much privacy to give up.

Re:Right On

[whistlingtony]

Hey CanHasDIY?

Instead of demonizing "liberals" as unable to form cogent fucking thoughts, not to mention rabid hack partisan asshats who suddenly agree with horrible policies..... You could realize, and I speak here as a liberal, that we FUCKING STILL HATE THEM AND ARE HORRIBLY DISAPPOINTED IN OBAMA FOR CONTINUING THEM. Really.

I mean, really, Fuck Obama. I'm a liberal. Fuck him. Fuck him for continuing those stupid practices. Fuck him for gitmo, fuck him for the NSA, fuck him for the warrantless wiretapping, for continuing the Patriot Act, for all the warmongering over Iran, etc etc etc.

There, see? We don't just magically agree with shit because it's "Our Guy" in office. Fuck Obama. Perhaps you should think better of us now, hmm?

Re:Right On

[swillden]

And, as I said, by doing this you're effectively opting out of the system. Protest votes are irrelevant. It's not about picking a winner, it's about having an impact, and your approach has none -- it's equivalent to flipping a coin and casting your vote for one of the two major party candidates, or simply not voting at all. None of them have any bearing on the outcome, and neither of them send any significant "message".

If you want to have an impact, and neither of the major parties is offering what you want, then the only way to accomplish anything is to get involved and change one of the parties so it does offer what you want.

Re:Right On

[MightyYar]

It's better than teaching to the government's idea of ignorance.

Re:Right On

[TheCarp]

> I held my nose and voted for Obama. What was my option here? Gordon Gecko? You think
> whichever boob we put in office isn't going to have these policies?

This. This is how they keep winning and keep the duopoly.

Here is the thing.... in a big tent party the only person who HAS to be listened to is someone willing to walk out of the tent. If you are so afraid of Mitt RMoney that you can't not vote for Obama; then you are marginalized.

It isn't whether the other guy would have the policies, its about the long game. What would Democrats do if Obama lost and Jill Stein or Gary Johnson got enough of a block that they had to attribute part of the loss to it? In the long game it would force the democrats to listen to the people who walked out of their tent.

Re:Right On

[Immerman]

Are you so sure there's a difference?

Re:Right On

[tibman]

Maybe if the President responded to this then Snowden would be home: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD

Re:Right On

[anagama]

What you don't get, is that you can't have an impact by voting major parties. They are totally fungible.

Secondly, the parties are immutable -- the notion that you can change them from within is belied by all the evidence that you can't. Look at the 2008 election -- Obama lied (to get elected) and people died. Again, it is a form of insanity to say "I hate what you are doing, but I'll vote for you anyway" and expect change.

Third parties bring topics that the GOP and DNC won't touch due to the bipartisan consensus on so many issues. Supporting third parties is the only way to get those issues debated. Of course, what has been a real problem since Ross Perot, is that the parties simply won't allow others into the debates.

Finally, Obama is the poster child of New Boss Same as the Old Boss. One can only hope that eventually, enough people will get it. And when that happens, change will occur. But by working inside the DNC? That's useless and will just continue our slow rightward slide with every "you suck, but I still vote for you" decision.

Re:Right On

[G3CK0]

Please reconsider. The problem is that the two party system is here to stay. The only way to take back our government is to fight from within. Get involved and help take it back! Do not throw your hands up in disgust, rather get them dirty in the fight to bring about common sense and decency!

Re:Right On

[dj245]

This drove me so crazy. The most perfect example of how rotten Democrats are, is Marty Lederman, who excoriated the Bush administration for using secret legal memos to authorize due process free detention, but who upon admittance to the Obama team, began writing the secret legal memos to justify due process free execution.

This is why I'm not a Democrat anymore --- evil is evil no matter who does it. The Democratic party's silence on the fact that Obama has embraced and extended every GWB policy they once complained about, has made me understand that GOP and DNC are purely tribal organizations with absolutely no basis in rationality, morality, or even a consistent kind of crazy. They're just teams working toward the same neo-con goals. I will never vote for anyone who is a member of either party.

On a national level, that is definitely true. Big money politics buys big influence for big evil evangalists. However, the closer you get to local politics, the less true it becomes.

At the lowest levels of government, generally you find a bunch of people just doing a good job, and often without their party's ideology influencing them much. Only the creamy evil goodness rises to the top. Why is that?

Re:Right On

[cheekyjohnson]

We don't just magically agree with shit because it's "Our Guy" in office.

Perhaps you don't, but no matter which side people are on, most of them seem to.

Re:Right On

[anagama]

I won't support people who are part of the corruption -- they could Jesus/Ghandi/Portman rolled into one, and I wouldn't care for a couple reasons:

1) supporting the good people in the corrupt org gives that organization some credence.
2) even good people cannot avoid being tainted.
3) supporting the org perpetuates its ability to be corrupt.

Re:Right On

[cheekyjohnson]

There are proper procedures to follow if he suspected wrong doing.

I do not consider those procedures to be proper, and it's due to the fact that they result in the American people remaining ignorant of the crimes their government is committing.

Re:Right On

[PrimaryConsult]

When you vote D or R, you are voting for the policies they *currently* have. The best way to push them is vote for a third party that has what you want. D and R are constantly trying to court the independent vote, party line voters are already in the bag, they don't need to care about them. Think about it, if people in favor of a stance on issue X held by a Libertarian vote Lib enough that the Rs lose important elections, they will incorporate issue X to win back those voters.

Re:Right On

[matthewv789]

Not so. If enough people vote, say Green, Pirate, Peace and Freedom, etc. that the Democrats start to lose votes off the progressive side, then they'll have to shift their policies to the left in hopes of getting them back, rather than constantly trying to stay JUST SLIGHTLY to the left of the Republicans, wherever the Republicans happen to be.

Re:Right On

[some old guy]

Since the two major choices are really just a toss-up, then voting third party can't spoil much, can it?

The us-vs-them schtick on narrow hot-button pet issues is how they gloss the underlying collusion.

You can vote Demublican, or vote your conscience. That's a pretty clear choice.

Re:Right On

[Vellmont]

Flash forward 7 years - now it's the "liberal" guy in office, and suddenly all those horrible policies aren't considered so horrible after all

Huh? Obama has been a huge mixed bag. I severly fault him for the NSA spying, not closing Gitmo, not ending the Iraq war any sooner, continued drone strikes, continued nutso flying policies (can I PLEASE stop taking off my damn shoes!), not cleaning up the financial mess, not putting anyone in jail for the financial mess, and the renewal of the patriot act. Sadly these issues are largely bi-partisan. You're going to tell me that McCain and Romney would have been any different with any of these?

The two parties don't differ a lot on foreign policy. The Democrats want to play ball with other countries more than the Republicans do. But on the whole there's a huge similarity between them. There's certainly areas where the parties differ enormously (largely where money should be spent, and the role of government in society). Those I've been more happy with. But to say that Obama has enjoyed some kind of liberal love fest where we're all just super happy with him, or we've all just bent over and decided we really love oppression is just completely wrong.

Re:Right On

[Anonymice]

Whilst I understand the dilemma, this is a defeatist attitude & not in the heart of democracy.

We had a similar problem in the UK with Labour & the Conservatives. The Conservatives lost many voters due to the huge controversies created during their reign in the 80's & 90's (symbolised by Thatcher), and the following Labour government took us into an illegal war & steered us into the financial crisis (it was the collapse of Lehman's in London that sent the dominoes falling).
The disillusion gave way to the Liberal Democrats getting their highest share of the vote in a *century*, forcing a coalition government. They didn't get a majority, however it gave the two leading parties a massive reality check & kick in the backside.

Prior to the election, we were all warned to vote tactically & that a vote for one of the minor parties would be a vote wasted.

If enough people act, change CAN happen.

Re:Right On

[CanHasDIY]

Hey CanHasDIY?

Instead of demonizing "liberals" as unable to form cogent fucking thoughts, not to mention rabid hack partisan asshats who suddenly agree with horrible policies..... You could realize, and I speak here as a liberal, that we FUCKING STILL HATE THEM AND ARE HORRIBLY DISAPPOINTED IN OBAMA FOR CONTINUING THEM. Really.

I mean, really, Fuck Obama. I'm a liberal. Fuck him. Fuck him for continuing those stupid practices. Fuck him for gitmo, fuck him for the NSA, fuck him for the warrantless wiretapping, for continuing the Patriot Act, for all the warmongering over Iran, etc etc etc.

There, see? We don't just magically agree with shit because it's "Our Guy" in office. Fuck Obama. Perhaps you should think better of us now, hmm?

Yea, great, so one self-identifying liberal doesn't agree with Obama.

Unless you're going to be speaking as a guest of honor at the next DNC, then you're obviously the exception, not the rule.

Imagine you did stand before the Democratic National Convention and say the things you just said in that post. How do you think the other people in the room would react? The fact that there most definitely would not be a resounding echo of agreement with your words (more likely, they'd try and lynch your ass) proves my point.

But hey, now you know how Ron Paul always felt when "liberals" talked about him as if he were a Republican.

Re:Right On

[CanHasDIY]

Hey CanHasDIY?

Instead of demonizing "liberals" as unable to form cogent fucking thoughts,

Forgot to point this out in my previous response: No where in my post did I single out liberals as being the only group unable to form cogent thoughts. The fact that you decided to extrapolate that meaning speaks volumes about your true attitude regarding this topic.

Methinks a bit of introspection is warranted on your part.

Re:Right On

[CanHasDIY]

Flash forward 7 years - now it's the "liberal" guy in office, and suddenly all those horrible policies aren't considered so horrible after all

Huh? Obama has been a huge mixed bag. I severly fault him for the NSA spying, not closing Gitmo, not ending the Iraq war any sooner, continued drone strikes, continued nutso flying policies (can I PLEASE stop taking off my damn shoes!), not cleaning up the financial mess, not putting anyone in jail for the financial mess, and the renewal of the patriot act. Sadly these issues are largely bi-partisan. You're going to tell me that McCain and Romney would have been any different with any of these?

No, and BTW by focusing on the people named and not the topic in general, you have completely missed the point I was making - to the typical, low-information American voter, bad policies are only considered bad when it's the "other guys" making and implementing them. When "their guy" does the exact same shit, suddenly the same people who were demonizing the previous administration step up and ruthlessly defend the new one. That is what I'm bitching about, not the policies of one politician in particular; fuck 'em all, I say.

For example, go find a history of editorials written by Eugene Robinson - during the Bush II admin, he did nothing but demonize domestic surveillance, but once it came to light that Obama was expanding the policy, Robinson suddenly changed tune and exhorted the virtues of spying on your own citizens.

Re:Right On

[celle]

"Land of the free, alright - free of the ability to form cogent fucking thoughts."

        You can't tell from the birth rate.

Re:Right On

[CanHasDIY]

"Land of the free, alright - free of the ability to form cogent fucking thoughts."

        You can't tell from the birth rate.

Hey - you don't have to think to get preggers.

Hell, in my experience, thinking prevents pregnancy.

Re:Right On

[celle]

"They got scared and decided the Bush policies were just the ticket to prevent the backlash because then they can say they did everything they could."

        So, in other words, you're saying they did what the Bush administration did because they're spineless wimps who can't handle the responsibilities of the office. Responsibilities means making the decisions and taking actions for the US public (American people) instead of their careers, taking the heat for both being good and bad, and accepting accountability as well as being held accountable for their decisions and actions.
        Very few politicians in the last fifty years fit that mold.

Re:Right On

[Livius]

[George Washington]'s a criminal.

Correct.

Re:Right On

[_merlin]

Whether or not his actions were worth it largely depends on how we view him NOW. If we dismiss him as a criminal, nothing will change and his efforts were for naught.

You've forgotten one important thing: even if we dismiss him as a criminal, he's satisfied his own conscience. It might not be worth anything to the rest of us, but he'll be able to die at peace with himself. Even one man's inner peace is worth something.

Re:Right On

[Hatta]

I held my nose and voted for Obama.

Then you share in the blame.

What was my option here?

Anything other than D or R. ANYTHING.

You think whichever boob we put in office isn't going to have these policies?

Exactly, so why do you participate in the charade? The only vote that matters is a protest vote.

So I don't think anyone is "OK" with this

And yet you vote for policys you are not OK with. YOU are the idiot.

Re:Right On

[CanHasDIY]

[George Washington]'s a criminal.

Correct.

Suddenly I have a nigh irresistible urge to put on my most sardonic, patronizing voice and ask if the poor widdle Bwitish Empire is still feeling butthurt about having their asses handed to them by a rag-tag handful of colonists with inferior muskets...

Re:Right On

[Vellmont]

Secondly, the parties are immutable -- the notion that you can change them from within is belied by all the evidence that you can't.

If you think the parties haven't changed drastically over the last 20 or 30 years, you haven't been paying attetion. The Republican party has become far, far, far more radical. Good god.. Palin was questioning whether the great god Ronald Reagan was conservative enough just recently! And it's not as if she's not correct. Reagan was a freaking liberal compared to where the tea party wants the Republicans to go.

Now we could have an interesting discussion on exactly WHAT causes the parties to change. But if you don't even acknowledge they've changed drastically, there's not much point in a further discussion.

Re:Right On

[Trailer Trash]

The first past the post voting system in America will always reinforce the two party setup we have. Third party voting can send a message in a lopsided election but in anything close, it's dangerous. It is arguably the reason we even had GWB in the first place. Gore probably would have won had he not lost so many votes to the Green party.

And Bush 1 would have definitely been reelected had it not been for Perot. Given that, it's difficult to guess what the 2000 election would have even looked like were it not for 3rd parties 8 years earlier.

Note, by the way, that Perot was a 3rd party candidate who actually could have won. Read up on it if you're not familiar with the whole story.

Re: Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always send him money.

Re:Right On

[s.petry]

Nothing like knowing half the facts to back a half a thought.

It's easy to blame the American voter, but not so easy to zoom out and look at the bigger picture. Let us gander at what has changed in the last 30 years, and how has that impacted our ability to discuss and debate issues?

1. Media Monopolization - 30 years ago, it was possible to see alternative views. Milton Friedman was on numerous TV shows, and it gained those media outlets ratings and money. Today, you will hear no such alternative views on economics on TV shows. You get Miley and other nonsense, so can't think about a different way of doing things unless you are intelligent enough to go out looking. The majority of the population does not have that ambition or level of intelligence.

2. Take over of all parties - 30 years ago, where was some differences between Democrats and Republicans. We had a 3rd party that nearly won a presidential election even though he was being blackmailed by Republicans. A whopping 1 person went to jail over the blackmail, and very few people heard anything about this happening. See item 1.

3. Militarization of Police - 30 years ago, we could March on DC and be heard. Today, you are jailed on the bus *IF*, and only *IF* you are lucky enough to hear about a political rally due to item 1. Protesters are tried by the media (also see item 1) long before a court, and the only thing people hear about in regards to a protestor is what the media want's them to hear (again see item 1).

4. Our education system has been corrupted. Why don't you know? See item 1. What can you do about it? Petition and teach people to think critically. You won't, most likely. Due to item 1 again, many self proclaimed intellects can't recognize a fallacy that's punching them in the nose.

In short, there is a lot of things we need to change. Blaming the people who are lied to and have no alternative reality to investigate and contemplate are not fully to blame. You start knocking on doors, talking and teaching and see the result. I do this every day, and it's slow going. More and more we need to teach and be vocal because item 1 is such a huge advantage to the bad guys.

Or don't, simply hide and pretend there is nothing going on. You can't win a game you refuse to play, but you sure as hell can lose it.

Re:Right On

[MightyYar]

Now that you mention it, they are two sides of the same coin! :)

Re:Right On

[swillden]

Whilst I understand the dilemma, this is a defeatist attitude & not in the heart of democracy.

You didn't read my post.

Re:Right On

[swillden]

No, because voting for a third party has the opposite effect from what you want. It does more damage to the major party that is ideologically closest to your opinion (i.e. that one that would have gotten a "lesser-of-evils" vote from you), thereby strengthening the party that is further from your preferences.

Re:Right On

[swillden]

Secondly, the parties are immutable -- the notion that you can change them from within is belied by all the evidence that you can't

Utter nonsense.

The parties shift all the time, and those shifts are driven by the people within them. In fact, people working within the parties have huge leverage, each one is easily worth 100 voters in terms of impact, and the people that actually achieve prominence within the parties have more leverage still.

Re:Right On

[swillden]

Look up "Duverger's Law".

Re:Right On

[CanHasDIY]

Nothing like knowing half the facts to back a half a thought.

Hey, you know what? That was childish and uncalled for. I'm going to be the bigger person here and ignore it.

It's easy to blame the American voter, but not so easy to zoom out and look at the bigger picture. Let us gander at what has changed in the last 30 years, and how has that impacted our ability to discuss and debate issues?

1. Media Monopolization - 30 years ago, it was possible to see alternative views. Milton Friedman was on numerous TV shows, and it gained those media outlets ratings and money. Today, you will hear no such alternative views on economics on TV shows. You get Miley and other nonsense, so can't think about a different way of doing things unless you are intelligent enough to go out looking. The majority of the population does not have that ambition or level of intelligence.

2. Take over of all parties - 30 years ago, where was some differences between Democrats and Republicans. We had a 3rd party that nearly won a presidential election even though he was being blackmailed by Republicans. A whopping 1 person went to jail over the blackmail, and very few people heard anything about this happening. See item 1.

3. Militarization of Police - 30 years ago, we could March on DC and be heard. Today, you are jailed on the bus *IF*, and only *IF* you are lucky enough to hear about a political rally due to item 1. Protesters are tried by the media (also see item 1) long before a court, and the only thing people hear about in regards to a protestor is what the media want's them to hear (again see item 1).

4. Our education system has been corrupted. Why don't you know? See item 1. What can you do about it? Petition and teach people to think critically. You won't, most likely. Due to item 1 again, many self proclaimed intellects can't recognize a fallacy that's punching them in the nose.

Can't say I disagree, save for the needless playground insults there at the end.

In short, there is a lot of things we need to change. Blaming the people who are lied to and have no alternative reality to investigate and contemplate are not fully to blame. You start knocking on doors, talking and teaching and see the result. I do this every day, and it's slow going. More and more we need to teach and be vocal because item 1 is such a huge advantage to the bad guys.

Or don't, simply hide and pretend there is nothing going on. You can't win a game you refuse to play, but you sure as hell can lose it.

I don't blame them for "being lied to," I blame them for not only being stupid enough to believe such blatant bullshit, but to also insist, often with the threat of violence, that ALL Americans acquiesce to those aforementioned people's specific ideologies.

No, I don't cut a lot of slack. Know why? Because I've been hearing all the same lies as everyone else, but I'm smart enough to know that, when I think I'm being bullshitted, I should do some research and verify what I'm being told. Because I'm not one of those low-information, preach-to-the-choir, narcissistic asshole voters.

An asshole, sure, but an honest, informed, and straightforward one.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that others within the NSA had attempted to follow "proper" procedure and their complaints were conveniently buried. What Snowden did was the ONLY way that the truth could be revealed to the public.

People like you are traitors to the USA, to democracy and to freedom. You ought to be shot.

Re:Right On

[nurb432]

Then feel feel to violate them and spend the rest of your time in club-fed.

Re:Right On

[TapeCutter]

Obviously anyone who thinks US politics is "immutable" was born yesterday. From what I've seen of US politics the politicians are more beholden to their own "causes" rather than the stated policies of their party. It appears to me that US politicians "cross the isle" far more often than they do here in Oz. Disagreements within the party are aired more publicly in the US, in Oz they hide their "disunity" behind close doors in the caucus meetings.

The only place a Westminster party normally offers it's members this much voting freedom is when it's a moral question such as abortion, members are then allowed a "conscience" vote. (ie: the party is deliberately unwilling to define morality for it's members). Normally however they work out policy in private and agree to support it in public (even if they disagree with it personally). A member who does not tow the party line in public and chamber is at first public corrected by the party leader and then thrown out by party vote if the behaviour continues. The member does not lose his seat in parliament he loses the support of his party and becomes an independent sitting on the "cross-benches".

A high tolerance for "disloyalty" in a political party makes it difficult for a party to form a clear and consistent policy on anything. Enforcing party loyalty means the public is less certain what individual party members think but more certain about how they will vote in the house.

Re:Right On

[s.petry]

Hey, you know what? That was childish and uncalled for. I'm going to be the bigger person here and ignore it.

Did I not present dialogue to show the remainder of the thought where you simply insulted the majority of "average" people? You recognize that I am correct with what I state later on, so obviously this is not intended as "childish". If you are resentful or angered by an expansion of your statements why do you agree with what I stated? Is it perhaps a bit curt for your liking? If so, perhaps consider the bigger picture in your own statements in the future. You claim to be enlightened, so please enlighten us with your wisdom.

Can't say I disagree, save for the needless playground insults there at the end.

If you are insulted, then perhaps you are reading a personal where there is only a general observation. There was no personal attack in that sentence. If you feel that statement is an affront, there has to be a reason outside of the generalization I wrote.

I don't blame them for "being lied to," I blame them for not only being stupid enough to believe such blatant bullshit, but to also insist, often with the threat of violence, that ALL Americans acquiesce to those aforementioned people's specific ideologies.

_YOU_ have the means and will to look outside for information. Can you say the same for the rest of the public that only gets one reality, and it's not yours or mine? I used to be more like that, but as I began to explore more and gained some wisdom, I see the world a bit differently. How many US citizens know what "The Allegory of the Cave" is? How many have the means to investigate? The real answer to that is very few, and almost as few. This is why teaching and talking becomes so important. Do you know how many people I have woken up with that one piece of work from Plato/Socrates within a few minutes? Hundreds easily.

No, I don't cut a lot of slack. Know why? Because I've been hearing all the same lies as everyone else, but I'm smart enough to know that, when I think I'm being bullshitted, I should do some research and verify what I'm being told. Because I'm not one of those low-information, preach-to-the-choir, narcissistic asshole voters.

The game is not about _you_, and that is something I am not sure you understand. The game is much bigger than that. I never claimed you were low information, I claimed that you presented half the story. I supplied a big portion of the missing story. I also gave credible statements as to why the "I despise the average" is not productive.

An asshole, sure, but an honest, informed, and straightforward one.

I can come across the same way, but not for the same reasons. Usually it's not having patience with people that think they are enlightened who in reality either are not, or are extremely unproductive with their knowledge. Blaming "them" does not solve the problem, won't solve the problem, and can't solve the problem. It has never done so, and never will do so. Do you think that "Free Knowledge" that people like Socrates and various Religious people have preached has no meaning? No consequences? If you are truly enlightened, you will understand that that is exactly the game being played.

Re:Right On

[Psyborgue]

The problem is: it's always close. It's why I choose not to participate in the charade. I vote third party even if I really, really, dislike the idea of one of the assholes winning.

Re: Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying -1 I disagree is the right way to use this forum, but there are plenty of people that disagree strongly with calling him a hero.

To me, what he did was was tell you who owns the dog that was shitting on your lawn.
Yes, thanks to him we are talking about it, but he broke the law to do this, and the fact is we all knew there was shit on the lawn and all we're doing is talk about who is doing it, not the actual shit. Thanks to him, this one dog somehow made all the shit that ever was shat, big or small and we're not even talking about the bigger shit problem, just this own owner.

I see this all the time when it comes up that private companies have all of the data the NSA is collecting _and their use of it is not regulated_ unless it fits criteria like HIPAA.

"But, the government..." Ignoring the shit.

Re:Right On

[sumdumass]

You have to watch that they don't shift their policies just to get elected then ignore them altogether once your use has been taken advantage of. That is what seems to happen right now and I see no reason why it would be different in the future.

Of course I'm more or less on the other end of the spectrum. The people who most closely match my political ideals would be the tea party and I think they are doing something right by actually infiltrating the republicans and becoming a third party from within. The most dangerous part about Tea Party candidates is that they do not normally need a lot of party funding in order to win elections. In fact, they seem to be doing it on a shoe string budget and even closing gaps where democrats are strongly favored to win. The Virginia governors race comes to mind. No only did the democrats have to massively outspend Cuccinelli by 2 to 1, but they had to fund a third party candidate to siphon votes from him in order to win. And as we see with the well hated Tea Party members, they have a habit of saying screw off, we were elected to do X and your Y is not the same.

Re:Right On

[XcepticZP]

Whilst I understand the dilemma, this is a defeatist attitude & not in the heart of democracy.

If enough people act, change CAN happen.

Bullshit, and double bullshit. But at least you've proven why democracy is bad by your defense of it. It's ultimately geared to cater for the majority opinion, even if that opinion is detrimental to some. And intellectuals have the nerve to call that "freedom". One day we will look upon this system of governance we have come up with the same way we now look at flat-earthism.

Re: Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

straw men aren't made of hay, but straw. That's why they are called straw men.

Re:Right On

[anagama]

You are correct, they are not immutable -- they simply keep sliding rightward because lesser-evil voters are too afraid to lose one election for a larger overall victory. As a result, the DNC is the New GOP and the GOP is a parody of itself. Or otherwise stated, it is the function of the GOP to push us radically rightward, and the function of the DNC to make each such shift the new normal.

Re:Right On

[anagama]

The effect of this short term next election thinking, is that the DNC today looks like the GOP of the mid 70s.

Think long term for the win, else all you get is rightward slide.

Re:Right On

[anagama]

I'll bite, exactly who would you have voted for president in 2012? Obama by then had proved himself to be GWB II. It isn't like the DNC was going to field a different candidate to represent liberal voters. Or what about 2016? Already we hear about HRC being in the lineup -- HRC was so rabidly pro-Iraq war it's disgusting. You know what, the fuck the Democrats. I want to see them lose. If ever a party deserved to be punished for betraying its values, it's the DNC. There is no other language those bastards understand than -- "I lost the election because liberals would not sign up with my neo-con candidate."

Re:Right On

[jemmyw]

No, we're ok with it, thanks for asking though. The American Revolutionary War doesn't really feature in our social consciousness as it does yours, we're not taught about it at school (or much about the British Empire as a whole). History for us happens between 1066-1700 and 1918-1945.

Re:Right On

[shutdown -p now]

Protest votes are irrelevant.

The only reason why they're irrelevant is because most people think this way. Now yes, this is the stable point of the political system, but it doesn't mean that it has to be that way every election cycle. It's entirely possible to accumulate enough third party votes to upset the process, especially when one of the mainstream parties fucks up big time.

Re:Right On

[shutdown -p now]

Duverger's law is that FPTP tends to favor a two party system. It is statistically true, not universally true in any particular case. Furthermore, Duverger's law describes the behavior of people, but people don't have to submit to it, especially when they're aware of it.

Re:Right On

[Dahamma]

I pretty much thought as you do when the story first broke.

But now, after everything that has come out, he IS a hero - because he scarified himself for the common good. He has undoubtedly broken his promises of confidentiality and will now pay for it by his whole life being turned upside down.

I look at it this way - much of what the NSA was doing was illegal and unconstitutional by both international treaty and the Constitution, but no one would have ever known about it or judges been able to rule on it to stop it unless someone spoke up. If that isn't the most perfect definition of a "whistleblower" in all the right ways I don't know what is.

Oh, and "proper procedures to follow if he suspected wrong doing"? Are you fucking kidding me!? This isn't like some middle manager made an unethical decision and it needed to be reported, this is the NSA spending BILLIONS of dollars setting up illegal data collection activities. The whole system is set up so that reporting to your superiors gets you laughed at, and reporting to anyone else gets you imprisoned.

Re:Right On

[Dahamma]

Hah, "scarified"? Who uses *scarified* in everyday conversation?? SACRIFICED. Sometimes have to wonder about Safari's autocorrects...

Re:Right On

[swillden]

Consider also that the US has always been a two-party nation, since its founding. Further, the vast majority of our history has been with the current two parties, and the last time we managed to swap out one party for another was during the events leading up to the biggest political cataclysm in the nation's history -- the Civil War. And prior to that, the two parties had been stable since almost the very beginning.

Duverger's law has exceptions, but there is no evidence at all that the US system can be one.

Re:Right On

[swillden]

It's never happened. It will never happen. It may get close to happening, but that will propel the major party ideologically furthest from the third party into power, and the third party voters will realize their mistake and the third party will fade away.

Mind you, I don't like this, but it's reality in the United States. If you want to effect political change you have to do it from inside one of the major parties. Or convince both of the major parties to change the voting system.

Re:Right On

[swillden]

Better than a leftward slide :-)

Though I actually want a libertarian slide. Both the left and the right are extremely authoritarian, the left worse than the right.

However, if you read my other posts, what I'm suggesting is not "short term" at all. In fact, my recommended strategy will likely take a decade or two... but it has the advantage of having a chance of working, unlike third party voting.

Re:Right On

[antdude]

I don't think he can be home in the future anymore. :(

Re:Right On

[AthanasiusKircher]

Voting for a major party can send a message in a lopsided election but in anything close, it's dangerous. It is arguably the reason we even had GWB in the first place. Gore probably would have won had he not lost so many votes to the Republican party.

There, fixed that for you.

Something like 12% of registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush in the 2000 election -- over 200,000 voters. That's over twice number of ALL Green Party voters in Florida combined (including registered Democrats, Republicans, and independents). Something like five times as many Democrats voted for Bush as voted for Nader.

Wanna blame somebody for GWB? How about the millions of voters (and yes, millions of Democrats) who voted for him? A major reason why the system doesn't work is because of people like you who believe propaganda put out by the major parties convincing people that awful things will happen if they vote for some other party. Guess what? Awful things will still happen, but expressing your support is a stamp of approval for those parties to keep doing what they're doing.

Re:Right On

[Rolgar]

Not to mention Clinton was elected twice with less that 50% of the vote.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct, they are not immutable -- they simply keep sliding rightward because lesser-evil voters are too afraid to lose one election for a larger overall victory. As a result, the DNC is the New GOP and the GOP is a parody of itself. Or otherwise stated, it is the function of the GOP to push us radically rightward, and the function of the DNC to make each such shift the new normal.

If we've gone comically off the rails to the right how do you explain the largest expansion of social spending - Obamacare - in decades?

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah. Funny, I thought it was intentional and gave you credit for being erudite.
Scarified fits in better than sacrificed for Snowden. Sacrificed means destroyed, which he isn't, whereas scarified means damaged, which he is.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

I held my nose and voted for Obama. What was my option here?

Jill Stein you fucking moron. Goddammit.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

For me it's pretty easy - I live in Texas, where the Republican is pretty much going to win.

So the easy way to change the game? Vote the primaries! MASSIVELY get people to vote in the primaries. In Texas it's even easier - you are allowed to vote in either primary. So if the X is too (whatever), vote for the other candidate... who, almost regardless, will WIN the actual election!

Re:Right On

[Bite The Pillow]

You're free to form them, you just haven't.

Peoples' opinions don't change just because their guy is in charge. Sure it happens to some people, but not to others. Overgeneralize if you want, but to make sense you should start with some numbers which can be debunked.

In general, putting laws into place and then turning it over to the other guy really is bad - because you expected your guy to use it for good, and the other guy obviously is only going to abuse it. But that's just generalization.

Based on a sampling of all internet posters, I can conclude that you live in your mother's basement, you speak English as a second language, you have sex with your mother routinely, you smell bad, and your IQ is average at best.

We could be talking about specifics, but that's not where your focus is.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

Party line voters are not in the bag. If your not liberal enough or not conservative enough your going to get primaried. This is what the Bush team realized and they went out of their way to make sure their base was loyal and was going to get out and vote. Politics since then has been about making sure your base turns out not about making sure someone on the fence who might not even vote anyway, votes for you.

You are right though, voting third party is the best way to push policy you want, since it takes away votes and sends a clear message for what you want. If you don't vote at all you've basically tossed your hat into the wind. The people who run campaigns for a living don't have time to guess what you are willing to vote for or try and trust ify polls, they look at past elections to have an idea for how people are going to vote and what policy to follow.

Just check out the elections of 1896 peoples party (dems) 1968 George Wallace (reps) Both of those elections had quite noticeable effects on the major parties there after.

Re:Right On

[robsku]

Damn it feels good to see americans who realize this :) *thumbs up*

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

They are totally fungible.

They're what?

Re:Right On

[danbert8]

You are very incorrect. Third party voting in a close election is the strongest vote. If R and D are nearly the same, it's not much of a spoiler effect because we are doomed anyway. Forcing a major party to lose because a 3rd party took enough votes is EXACTLY what it will take to change the policies of the major party. Obama and Romney were ideologically the same. I voted Gary Johnson because he had better executive experience and record than either of them and actually had policies that made sense. If he had managed to pull enough votes from either side to upset the election, then this next election cycle Republicans and Democrats would start catering or at least paying some lip service to libertarian ideas.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

Gore probably would have won had he not lost so many votes to the [various socialist] part[ies].

FTFY

Quite a number of the socialist parties got enough votes, in Florida, that if they had have gone Democrat instead, the election would have gone to Gore.

Don't blame the Greens, blame the system.

Re:Right On

[Carewolf]

Which exactly why it has such a strong effect on the party that is ideologically closer, the politicians there NEED to win your vote to not lose. If you are willing to vote for them whatever they do, they have absolutely not insentive to try to win you, they only court swing-voters either those that swing to the other major party, to a third party or to the couch party.

Re:Right On

[towermac]

It's funny, the Dems have moved further left in that time span as well, the parties seem to be further apart than ever. And yet, you can't tell the difference in the two most recent presidents. With the exception of the healthcare law, the policies are barely different; certainly not some night and day difference that the campaign suggested. It's weird.

But don't forget, Reagan was a Democrat. I never held it against a guy that switched parties, except maybe on the eve of some critical vote. It tells me at least that he's not some ideologue, rigidly wedded to 'principle'. He weighs his issues against the two parties, and goes with one. Because we get one of two. Ard if you're not willing, at least in principle, to switch over; then your party affiliation means nothing. Because they've got you by default, is what you're admitting, so then, positions and issues don't matter.

And btw, Reagan did change the GOP, but it took him 8 years or more. He beat the in place, blue blood, Republican machine, and he used Democrat votes to do it. So he sort of cheated, and I think they held it against him.

Sort of what Sarah Palin did. Take away everything she's said, and all the coverage; and simply look at what she's done. Only one thing of note stands out: She rose to prominence by beating the long established Republican machine. She beat the Big Oil money funding that machine, not by using bigger money, but by using Democratic votes, along with some Republican. Populist, they call that. First, by getting Governor, then, by getting that guy tossed out; she got Alaskans like 2 grand a year more on their oil checks. Talk about tax the rich and redistribution and all that stuff, hopefully any Democrat would love to take credit for that one.

Other than that, not much; a minor politician thrust into fame by a desperate John McCain, obviously not ready for prime time, and would not have earned it on her own. It's just her talking really; I can't stand it. I think most people have that. She can't get three sentences out, without lecturing me on the values of the mother bear, or some life lesson, or other thing that annoys me; she's a younger version of my mom. An hour or two, and I'm good for a while, and must get away. ;)

But she hasn't done anything bad, and she's not that radical. Conservative as they come, maybe, but when she showed up for work, the state was apparently governed adequately, with no huge cuts or fundamental changes, and she pulled off a Democrat's wet dream in the short time she was there. That doesn't qualify her for President, btw, and I'd rather not see her there, so you and I have that in common.

Where we might part ways, is if you run her down too much. That's the only thing that's given her any sticking power, is the media focus on her (not that she doesn't eat most of it up), and if you're too mean to her, then you end up forcing me to jump to her defense. We thus end up polarized over nothing, agreeing on many of the issues, and on the fact that we don't want her for President.

Re:Right On

[anagama]

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

Re:Right On

[CanHasDIY]

No, we're ok with it, thanks for asking though. The American Revolutionary War doesn't really feature in our social consciousness as it does yours, we're not taught about it at school (or much about the British Empire as a whole).

... And yet your pop culture personalities just can't seem to stop referring to both America and Australia as "the colonies."

So, you personally, might be over it, but culturally speaking still seem to be holding a grudge.

Re:Right On

[CanHasDIY]

If you're going to open with a needless insult, I'm going to assume that you're an idiot and not worth responding to.

That is all.

Re:Right On

[jemmyw]

I think you might be mistaking humourously poking fun for a grudge. It works well with America because you're sensitive about it.

Re:Right On

[CanHasDIY]

I think you might be mistaking humourously poking fun for a grudge.

Yea, whatever you've got to tell yourself, bud.

It works well with America because you're sensitive about it.

Not really.

Definitely not as sensitive as Brits are when we 'Muricans point out that if not for us saving your asses in WW-duece, y'all'd be speaking German right now.

Re:Right On

[jemmyw]

Seems to be getting you a bit worked up :)

Re:Right On

[CanHasDIY]

Seems to be getting you a bit worked up :)

Then your ability to infer emotion through text is lacking, at best.

Re:Right On

[Anonymous Coward]

Palin was questioning whether the great god Ronald Reagan was conservative enough just recently!

Reagan was not - IMO - conservative by any libertarian standard. He didn't shrink the budget, scope of government, or the trends of the military-industrial complex. Courtesy of "just say no", the budding prison-industrial complex grew ever faster.

ER/Hospitals lost the ability to turn away patients (now many of those hospitals don't exist so 100% are turned away effectively) thank to Reagan. The Federal grip on education tightened.

Reagan sucked ass. Why don't you get this? Why do you seemingly endorse the wars on everything?

Reagan was a freaking liberal compared to where the tea party wants the Republicans to go.

No, a "liberal" wants freedom just a libertarian does. He was "liberal" like Clinton, like Bush, like Obama, like Bush. Not "liberal" in any good sense of the term.

Re:Right On

[whistlingtony]

Your entire post was about liberals making excuses for "their guy". You don't get to play the victim here. Oh, poor you. I'm accusing you of singling out liberals.... Which is what you did. So stuff your call for introspection.

If you'd like more liberals mad at Obama... How about Harry Reid? He keeps saying Obama is a shit negotiator who gives away everything and then wonders why the R's don't meet him halfway. How about watching the Young Turks sometime? How about Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? How about almost every fucking liberal I know?

Go TALK to some liberals. Really. And yes, my words might not go over well with the DNC. That's the reason this country has swung to the right so much. There is NO tea party for the left, driving politics to the left. It's hopefully starting up with the more Progressive Congresscritters coming out.

Yeah yeah, Ron Paul. I happen to like Ron Paul up the the point where he says something crazy. Every time I listen to him I'm all... "yeah... Yeah... Yeah!..... YEAH!....... Wait, what? No! that's a terrible idea! We can't abolish the EPA!" If he'd stop one point short of crazy, I'd be all for him.... AND I STILL LOVE THE GUY. He's one of the few people to stand up and point out the stupidities of the system. I'm a liberal, and I LOVE RON PAUL.... I just don't like the third of what he says about getting rid of the government and going back to the gold standard.

Re:Right On

[CanHasDIY]

Your entire post was about liberals making excuses for "their guy". You don't get to play the victim here. Oh, poor you. I'm accusing you of singling out liberals.... Which is what you did. So stuff your call for introspection

Then you fail, by virtue of the fact you obviously didn't read the second-to-last sentence of my post:

Unless, of course, you're a self-proclaimed "conservative," in which case letting "your guy's" laws fall into the hands of the "other guy" is the worst fucking thing to happen in American history.

See? I called both sides out. That you failed to notice something so obvious is a fault of your own predilections, not mine.

No It's Not

[Anonymous Coward]

He may have gotten us all to open our eyes regarding the NSA, Constitutional abuses, Corporate America's involvement and capitulation, etc, but as long as he has more documents his mission is not complete.

Re:No It's Not

[dzelenka]

He may have gotten us all to open our eyes regarding the NSA, Constitutional abuses, Corporate America's involvement and capitulation, etc, but as long as he has more documents his mission is not complete.

If he's smart (and I think he is) there is a cache of documents somewhere that the NSA never wants exposed. The NSA knows he has them. That's Snowden's insurance policy. They will only come out if Snowden is killed or captured.

Re: No It's Not

[Anonymous Coward]

Puh-leeze, the fantasy of him being captured or killed is strictly that: fantasy. Must make up for his disciples' mundane lives.

Re:No It's Not

[shutdown -p now]

The official story so far is that he surrendered all his documents to the journalists from the get go, and they are the ones leaking them bit by bit to maximize the impact.

And nothing has changed...

[Anonymous Coward]

And nothing has changed. What a waste of time. Enjoy your stay, comrade.

Re:And nothing has changed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Comrade?!? Really? Jesus you're a fucking moron.

Re:And nothing has changed...

[Opportunist]

If nothing has changed, it's not his fault.

It's ours.

Re:And nothing has changed...

[Anonymous Coward]

You were hoping for change? From this administration?

Re:And nothing has changed...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And nothing has changed. What a waste of time. Enjoy your stay, comrade.

It took years for this shit to become entrenched, it is going to take at least as long to unwind it.

Re: And nothing has changed...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, we need _real_ change, like what Dubya gave us.

Re:And nothing has changed...

[torsmo]

No they were hoping for change from you, the people.

Re:And nothing has changed...

[jythie]

The question will be, will the public have the attention span to push those years. Though a bigger problem is, because of how or voting works, will issues like this even have an impact?

Re: And nothing has changed...

[JWW]

No! We need real change away from both what Bush did AND what Obama is doing.

Every time people make the "but Bush" argument they're giving Obama more power to abuse the system.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re: And nothing has changed...

[MickyTheIdiot]

I wish I had a mod point.

The usual procession of the conversation on this goes from "Obama did X, facscist, marxist, communist!" to "Bush did X too" to "OMG!!!1!! Obamabots don't take responsibility". Both of the last two administrations have MAJORLY fucked up our basic civil rights and since, once again, the air to so super-partisan we can't have a clear conversation about how the presidency is going downhill.

Re: And nothing has changed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadian define themselves as not Americans. So Obama is having a Canadian style identity crisis?

Re:And nothing has changed...

[Anonymous Coward]

You read it... ;)

Now will you excuse me, I have to get back to watching Duck Dynasty...

Re: And nothing has changed...

[Anonymous Coward]

The proper answer to "but Bush did it too" is "fuck that other war criminal, Bush too".

Captcha: cursing

Re:And nothing has changed...

[I_Voter]

Hmm,
I think a few things are or will be changing. Now as an amateur democracy activist I think more things would change if U.S. citizens had more political power. Or at least were aware of how little political power they have compared to most other democracies.

By the way - Missing the former certainty of the filibuster "comrade." The fact that the filibuster could be eliminated with a majority vote was leaked!

Jack (I_Voter)

Some relatively unknown and hopefully interesting things about the U.S. political system.
http://www.dancarlin.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=31156:

Jury Nullification In New Hampshire Becomes Reality
http://www.policymic.com/articles/10603/jury-nullification-in-new-hampshire-becomes-reality:

Re:And nothing has changed...

[CanHasDIY]

Hmm,

I think a few things are or will be changing. Now as an amateur democracy activist I think more things would change if U.S. citizens realized how much political power they actually have.

Read and understand the Constitution: the only powers the government has are specifically listed in that document; to that end, it even states that any power or right not specifically delegated to the government in the Constitution (and Amendments) is a right and power of the people.

The people running the government have been very successful at convincing regular folks that we don't actually have as many rights as the Constitution allows us. Not sure what to do about that one...

Re: And nothing has changed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except limp wristed liberals actually enjoy seeing their own country weakened, under the abstract notion that it "makes you stronger." You forget about your enemies. But then again, liberals feel that America is the problem and if only neutered, all would be fine. One hopes your enemies have learned plenty from your hero's leaks as well.

Re:And nothing has changed...

[justthinkit]

Agreed.

One question I have: How do we know Snowden said any of what is being reported in this story?

Re: Where's the Banner

[Anonymous Coward]

In the George W. Bush Presidential Library long-term storage, archived next to many of your liberties.

I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA should be dismantled....

Hang on, someone's at the door.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with Snowden that the NSA can serve a useful purpose. We do need a way to protect the country's lines of communications. We don't need them snooping on people without just cause.

Re:I disagree

[Thanshin]

Don't be ridiculous.

Have you seen the traffic? We'll need at least half an hour to reach you. Please stay put.

Secretly yours,
NSA.

Re:I disagree

[aliquis]

Oh, so that's what AMD Mantle is for ..

"Here, take this graphics card, it's good for you."

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

for that matter, any 3 letter agency should

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA isn't the only agency in the spy business, just the current focus of attention.. So what are those other agencies up to? Is all of the current discussion just a red-herring, diverting us from everything else going on?

Re:I disagree

[VortexCortex]

I disagree because your statement is blatantly false. The NSA can not serve a useful purpose. Simple application of the mathematics of information disparity proves you can't prove your statement to the contrary. As a scientist, I don't believe things without evidence, especially not statements lacking disprovability.

You're aware Omnivore, Carnivore, ECHELON, and PRISM's room 641A existed before 9/11. They failed to prevent 9/11, and every terrorist attack since the 70's. The NIST helps secure our encryption systems. By what amazing feat of mental gymnastics do you arrive at the conclusion that a secret research group can be proven to be helping secure our communications? No, that's asinine. I require evidence. The government secrecy is directly opposed to both freedom and security.

Especially since we've got an army of hubble-esque telescopes zipping around the earth providing total global situation awareness. You don't need warrantless wiretaps with that kind of spy power.

Bonus, the NRO helps with natural disasters, weather, and space sciences. Defund, NSA, DHS, etc., spit the funding between NASA and the NRO. The folks benefiting from domestic spying could instead make their money selling space wares... Ah, but then they wouldn't be able to do insider trading quite so well at all.

You can't be serious, right? By what logical misstep do you propose we trust again a spy who has proven to be a double agent? The same goes for an OS compromised by malware, there is no "removal" of malware, you nuke it from orbit, because it's the only way to be sure.

They want to have their cake and eat it too. We should either have no privacy indoors & in our communication between indoor areas while having expectation to not be spied on outdoors, or have zero protection of privacy outdoors & assurances that our communications are not compromised. Look, if you want to spy on my conversations you can just stand next to me, or aim a laser microphone at my windows or glasses. You don't need to tap the coms lines because folks can buy a burner phone and install their own encrypted voice and text applications. It'll be to late to do anything by the time it's deciphered. The domestic spying and wiretaps only prevent legitimate use of the technology.

Unfortunately, information theory tells us we can not have assurances that our communications are not spied on unless we eliminate the secret spying operation. We have a chance to eliminate secrets and stand brave among the most powerful nations who have mutually assured nuclear peace, and against which no terrorist can pose a threat. Scaremongers would have you believe the terrorists are nothing to sneeze at, yet every year the flu claims SIX TIMES the lives as a 9/11 scale attack. Cars and Cheeseburgers are 400 times more deadly every year than 9/11. Even the most devastating of terrorist threats is not even a flesh wound. We need proportional protection: If you're so scared of 1/400th the threat a Happy Meal poses, then allocate 1/400th of the taxes we spend on heart disease and accident prevention to the NSA and DHS. We need no secrets. Without secrets no spy can harm us.

The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.

- John F. Kennedy

As a rational human being: If you, Snowden or anyone would say that the NSA can serve a useful purpose then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to support your unproven claim. Don't forget to prove your hypothesis you will need to more significantly disprove the null hypo

Re:I disagree

[swillden]

You're aware Omnivore, Carnivore, ECHELON, and PRISM's room 641A existed before 9/11. [wikipedia.org] They failed to prevent 9/11, and every terrorist attack since the 70's.

Failure to stop terrorist attacks doesn't indicate lack of utility, it just indicates lack of utility against terrorists. The utility of the NSA is primarily against other nation states; the NSA was very useful during the Cold War, and its predecessor was astoundingly useful during WWII. You can argue that there is no current threat against which the NSA is a valuable tool, but that's a separate argument, which you didn't try to make.

The NIST helps secure our encryption systems.

Actually, it doesn't. NIST is a standards organization. It has run the selection processes for standard cryptographic algorithms lately, but it has always relied heavily on the NSA for technical expertise in the process. This was more visible during the DES standardization process, but you can be sure the NSA was advising for AES and SHA3.

By what amazing feat of mental gymnastics do you arrive at the conclusion that a secret research group can be proven to be helping secure our communications? No, that's asinine. I require evidence.

There is ample evidence in the development of many security technologies. I experienced it personally when I was building a key management system for smart card credit card issuance. The NSA exercised oversight over the design and implementation process, and made some really excellent suggestions that substantially improved the system.

I find it very, very disturbing that in recent years the NSA has apparently abandoned that part of their mission, and has been actively working to subvert strong security. I stop short of saying this means the NSA should be destroyed, but it definitely means it needs new management with the right mandate and proper oversight. And it should probably be pared down to a fraction of its current size.

Unfortunately, information theory tells us we can not have assurances that our communications are not spied on unless we eliminate the secret spying operation.

Actually, we cannot have any such assurances at all, because we can never know that we've eliminated all of the secret spying operations... because they're secret. By definition we can only eliminate the non-secret spying operations.

Re:I disagree

[nitehawk214]

I agree with Snowden that the NSA can serve a useful purpose. We do need a way to protect the country's lines of communications. We don't need them snooping on people without just cause.

And the person that determines just what is "just cause" cannot be the person doing the snooping.

Re:I disagree

[cold fjord]

Any sufficiently successful intelligence program may be indistinguishable from Magic.

Re:I disagree

[Camel Pilot]

They failed to prevent 9/11, and every terrorist attack since the 70's.

This would be like claiming the Polio vaccine is useless because it has failed to prevent every case of polio since the 50's

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, a completely valid assessment?

Re:I disagree

[swillden]

Read David Kahn's "The Codebreakers" for a broad, deep review of the contributions of signals intelligence in general, and the NSA in particular.

They could have listened to him...

[Anonymous Coward]

... when he was working there. According to Forbes, his coworkers report that he would wear a Electronic Frontier Foundation hoodie to work and have a copy of the constitution on his desk to argue when he was asked to do something against the constitution.
They just had to emulate him and he would still be in Hawai with his girlfriend and working for the NSA.

Re:They could have listened to him...

[DexterIsADog]

... when he was working there. According to Forbes, his coworkers report that he would wear a Electronic Frontier Foundation hoodie to work and have a copy of the constitution on his desk to argue when he was asked to do something against the constitution.

Oh my goodness, they really were clueless then. Even though I agree he's a hero, from a commonsense standpoint, I'm not kidding - they had someone working in a spook agency literally wearing his feelings about freedom on his sleeve, arguing using THE CONSTITUTION, and they didn't watch him closely?

Whether you think the NSA is the devil, on the side of the angels, or somewhere in between, their inaction in the face of these clear signals an employee disagreed with how they conduct their business is extraordinarily incompetent.

Re:They could have listened to him...

[oneiron]

...or they secretly agreed with him and hoped he'd do something about it.

Re:They could have listened to him...

[Richy_T]

Heck, with a copy of the constitution on his desk, his surprising he wasn't charged with possessing terrorist literature.

Re:They could have listened to him...

[CanHasDIY]

...or they secretly agreed with him and hoped he'd do something about it.

That's actually a fair point, since it's unlikely that a lowly contractor would be working in the same facility as the higher-ups who would stand to lose from such a disclosure...

His fellow 'agents' may very well have encouraged him to expose the materials.

Re:They could have listened to him...

[edibobb]

The U.S. Constitution would be considered terrorist literature by some in government if they'd ever read it.

Working for free?

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for several thousand employers, because I said so. Although they aren't paying me and won't acknowledge that I work for them, they're sooooooo going on my resume.

Re:Working for free?

[Richy_T]

He'd like his red stapler, please.

Not just NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. Now do the CIA. Now do the various surveillance agencies of the UK, Russia, etc. Now do China. Now do the corporations, etc. etc.

if we like being spied on & censored...

[Anonymous Coward]

we can keep it. even if we don't like it we must keep it? sounds like our fictional heritage? free the innocent stem cells

What he said in the interview

[tomhath]

It's pretty obvious from what he says in the interview that he was well coached ahead of time on what message to get out. But despite that, he comes across as essentially saying that he's smarter and more moral than anyone in the executive, judicial, or legislative branches of government.

There are ways to address concerns about abuses of government power, he chose the nuclear route. Whether exposing the abuses of power that were happening is worth the side effects remains to be seen.

Re:What he said in the interview

[bluefoxlucid]

It is incredibly easy to be smarter and more moral than anyone in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the government.

Sometimes you need to detonate the on-site warhead.

Re:What he said in the interview

[Anonymous Coward]

There are ways to address concerns about abuses of government power, he chose the nuclear route.

Well, of course. Do you honestly believe that the government would self-regulate? All those governments abusing powers throughout history must be a figment of my imagination, because there's no way that governments aren't composed of perfect beings! And I don't see any reason why the people shouldn't be aware of the abuses of power.

I'm glad he took what you call "the nuclear route."

Re:What he said in the interview

[oodaloop]

he comes across as essentially saying that he's smarter and more moral than anyone in the executive, judicial, or legislative branches of government.

Those two bars are not especially hard to cross.

Re:What he said in the interview

[Anonymous Coward]

He is not saying he is smarter, but you got the rest right.

Re:What he said in the interview

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty obvious from what he says in the interview that he was well coached ahead of time on what message to get out. But despite that, he comes across as essentially saying that he's smarter and more moral than anyone in the executive, judicial, or legislative branches of government.

Not that that's difficult.

Re:What he said in the interview

[AHuxley]

There is no open court "route" left in the US for cleared staff. You face the people you work for with your cleared lawyer selected from a short list of lawyers in a sealed court. He's smarter as in he saw the many who have tried before him and saw the color of law results - even with political support in sealed courts - nothing gets done or out to the tame US press. The rest is history, for academics, the press, lawyers and courts to work out in the US and around the world over time.
Better crypto for all the internet and less junk software is always a good thing :)

Re:What he said in the interview

[anmre]

Well, you can attack his character with impunity because there would be no way to prove or disprove your assertion (I have never met him, and I'm sure that you haven't either). And calling what he did the "nuclear route" is hyperbolic at best (nobody died).

Re:What he said in the interview

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there are a lot of smart people in the executive, judicial, legislative, and even in the intelligence branches of government. The problem is, they are in opposition (e.g., the executive preventing consideration of these issues by blocking court cases for years), the judiciary can only interpret the law as it is, the legislature has signed "blank checks" and been told only a limited amount of information about what is actually going on, and the intelligence agencies have regularly downplayed or outright lied about what they are actually doing.

At no point have the public been properly informed or consulted on this. Everything that was done to this point was a token, bogus effort. In the government it's a lot of smart people with (I believe) largely good intentions, but none of them have been allowed to see all of the pieces of the puzzle at once, or alternatively been able to share it with the public to get the public's views. That's a fundamental failure that defies the entire point of democracy and representative government. Yes, Snowden "chose the nuclear route" to get information out there, but considering the couple of decades of opportunity for any of those branches of government to do the right (inform and consult the public), it was justified. There was ample time for smart people in government to say "Wait, no, we shouldn't be doing this. At least, not without the public *really* knowing about it and giving their okay." Fail.

While I agree exposing these abuses of power has come at a high cost, there are two reasons why my concerns are tempered: 1) government had their chance to do it right, and didn't; 2) if nothing else, this episode should demonstrate yet again what most people should already know: you can't keep a secret forever, and it's better to get in front of it than to deal with the aftermath of an uncontrolled release to the public that isn't on your terms.

The public probably would be willing to grant the NSA and other intelligence agencies a lot of leeway to do their job, if properly monitored. Now? Not so much, because public trust has been violated.

Re:What he said in the interview

[RabidReindeer]

It is incredibly easy to be smarter and more moral than anyone in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the government.

General opinion is that even used-car salesman can do as much.

Re:What he said in the interview

[taiwanjohn]

Wish I had mod points today. +1 Insightful.

Re:What he said in the interview

[CanHasDIY]

It is incredibly easy to be smarter and more moral than anyone in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the government.

General opinion is that even used-car salesman can do as much.

When I was a kid, we had one really, really smart chicken.

I'd bet on ol' Roy the Rooster in a battle of wits with damn near any politician.

Re:What he said in the interview

[anagama]

Actually, there aren't any ways to address government abuse of power, except whistleblowing.

Kiriakou: torture whistleblower, only person person to go to prison over torture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou

Binney: Going to the DOJ about waste in the NSA will fuck up your life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)

Drake: Going through the legal processes within the NSA got him prosecuted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake

Re:What he said in the interview

[anagama]

You are correct -- in Snowden's case, it is actually impossible for him to mount a defense at trial:

https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-trial-all-whistleblower-evidence-would-likely-be-inadmissible

If Edward Snowden comes back to the US to face trial, he likely will not be able to tell a jury why he did what he did, and what happened because of his actions. Contrary to common sense, there is no public interest exception to the Espionage Act. Prosecutors in recent cases have convinced courts that the intent of the leaker, the value of leaks to the public, and the lack of harm caused by the leaks are irrelevant -- and are therefore inadmissible in court.

Re:What he said in the interview

[Midnight Thunder]

There are ways to address concerns about abuses of government power, he chose the nuclear route. Whether exposing the abuses of power that were happening is worth the side effects remains to be seen.

There are, but when you are likely to get brushed under the rug, other approaches need to be used. He essentially blew a hole through the rug, meaning there was no way to hide his message.

Was the way he did things the best way, it is hard to say, since I don't fully grasp the workings of the agency, but I suspect that there are too many people with vested interests in hiding their and the agencies failings? Sometimes in politics you need someone to put their neck on the line for the greater good, but it has to be done with care since otherwise to have collateral damage and possibly a miscommunicated message. IMHO Snowdon probably did something many people would have wanted to do, in the sense of causing change, but are too stuck in the political labyrinth to achieve anything. Don't underestimate the weight of government and bureaucracy to block real change. Too many stake holders who either have vested interests or don't want to experience change.

However you look at things, Snowdon was brave, but he did follow his convictions to the end. I think many of us would be too coward to do what he did.

Re:What he said in the interview

[Runaway1956]

I'll wager that you can find people in prisons in every state who possess higher morals than your average politician, or political appointee. Lots of them, in fact. The reason a lot of people are in prison, is that they did something ILLEGAL. Illegal and immoral should be synonymous, or at least very nearly so, but they are not.

Re:What he said in the interview

[Runaway1956]

Hyperbole? Without it, almost all political positions fall apart, in today's USA. So help me, I get email - well, here, try this:

Doomed!

We’ll get straight to the point:

If the Republicans hold on to the House in next year’s election, Speaker Boehner will destroy any chances of real progress and effectively run out the clock on President Obama’s term.

So here’s our plan for 2014: remove Boehner from power, elect a Democratic House, and finish the work we all started together.

We can win the 17 House seats we need to make that happen – but we’re going to need you on this. To put it bluntly, if we fall behind the Republicans on this year-end deadline, our campaign to win a Democratic House next year is doomed from the start.

The OTHER party's hyperbole is slightly less dramatic, but not much.

Re:What he said in the interview

[rlwhite]

True, but that's not what the parent is talking about. The parent is saying that the likelihood of change if Snowden had blown the whistle legally was very low. Unfortunately there seems to be no public knowledge of "the many who have tried before him" to validate whether or not the parent is accurate.

Re:What he said in the interview

[CanHasDIY]

To that end, I know guys in prison for drug possession, but not a single one of them has ever, say, used taxpayer dollars to fund a 'business trip' to Southeast Asia for the purpose of fucking underage boys.

So yea, coke dealers in Cell Block D actually do have a higher moral standing than a lot of DC politicians.

Re:What he said in the interview

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent is saying that the likelihood of change if Snowden had blown the whistle legally was very low.

What is the likelihood of real change now?

Re:What he said in the interview

[CanHasDIY]

Actually, there aren't any ways to address government abuse of power, except whistleblowing.

Oh, I can think of another, but IMO modern Americans are entirely too coddled and pussified to ever take up arms in significant enough numbers to make a difference.

The only thing I can think of that would save us from ourselves at this point would be a benevolent military coup.

Re:What he said in the interview

[anagama]

We've already suffered a soft coup by the Executive branch, I don't know why you think a different coup would make things better. One of the Unique things about the revolutionary period in 1700s and early 1800s, was the focus on liberty and democratic institutions of various varieties, but most coups are just about a different group of power hungry dicks taking power from an established group of dicks.

What we need is a judicial and legislative branch willing to step up to the role created for them in the Constitution -- to jealously guard their powers against Executive abuse rather than cede it, and to thereby ensure that no side gets too powerful. The mistake the founders made was in believing that politicians would consider it in their self-interest to protect their power areas and that this conflict would prevent the rise of one all powerful branch.

Over time, however, the branches got wise to this. For example, Congress figured out is was politically expedient to let the President "declare" war, or the Courts decided to defer to the Executive on anything labeled "State Secrets" and exercise no oversight -- now we have ideas such as the Unitary Executive, signing statements, extra-judicial everything. If the other branches got off their collective asses and protected their turf, a lot of these problems would go away. And note, this turf protecting presumes that they're all sociopaths -- it is the process of turf protection that was designed to protects us, not reliance that the people in the dirty fight would be good people. Our problem is that the politicians have figured out how to go beyond that level in furthering their self-interest and no longer engage in that internal war the founders envisioned, to our deep detriment.

Re:What he said in the interview

[RabidReindeer]

Actually, there aren't any ways to address government abuse of power, except whistleblowing.

Oh, I can think of another, but IMO modern Americans are entirely too coddled and pussified to ever take up arms in significant enough numbers to make a difference.

The only thing I can think of that would save us from ourselves at this point would be a benevolent military coup.

Welllll.... We might just try voting for people instead of parties and ideologies.

Specifically, people likely to change things.

Re:What he said in the interview

[Deadstick]

So why haven't all you smarter people gained control of the government and done something about it?

Re:What he said in the interview

[rlwhite]

Higher than it would ever be if no one had ever illegally leaked.

Re:What he said in the interview

[Anonymous Coward]

Because smarts only gets you so far. It's a question of resources and possibilities too. But I fear that kind of argument is a bit over your intellectual horizon.

Re:What he said in the interview

[PrimaryConsult]

Because the people who think about how to fix the government are not the ones thinking about how to get elected. There simply isn't enough time in the day to be well versed in both realms.

Re:What he said in the interview

[CanHasDIY]

Actually, there aren't any ways to address government abuse of power, except whistleblowing.

Oh, I can think of another, but IMO modern Americans are entirely too coddled and pussified to ever take up arms in significant enough numbers to make a difference.

The only thing I can think of that would save us from ourselves at this point would be a benevolent military coup.

Welllll.... We might just try voting for people instead of parties and ideologies.

Specifically, people likely to change things.

I don't disagree in the slightest that your plan would be a better one, I just lack the faith in humanity required to believe it's a more likely circumstance than a military takeover.

Personally, I do my part every election by voting my ideals, which, incidentally, means I almost always vote third party.

Re:What he said in the interview

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know anyone less moral than a government official?

Re: What he said in the interview

[pipedwho]

Individual people are by definition more moral than corporations, mobs, governments and politicians.

And beyond that, it is clear that Snowden is far more moral than the average person. So he doesn't only think he's more morally correct - he actually is.

An ad hominem attack implying he's a mouthpiece for some faceless agenda doesn't change anything either. Anyone going in front of the press should prepare what they are going to say. Running it past someone else in advance is probably a good idea. Calling it coached to turn it into a negative still does not negate the message.

Re:What he said in the interview

[NoOneInParticular]

There are ways to address concerns about abuses of government power,

[citation needed]

Re:What he said in the interview

[Hatta]

I just lack the faith in humanity required to believe it's a more likely circumstance than a military takeover.

I lack the faith in humanity required to believe that a military takeover or other armed rebellion would improve the situation at all.

Re:What he said in the interview

[celle]

"There are ways to address concerns about abuses of government power, he chose the nuclear route."

      When the nuclear route is all that's left, that's what you use.

Re:What he said in the interview

[CanHasDIY]

I just lack the faith in humanity required to believe it's a more likely circumstance than a military takeover.

I lack the faith in humanity required to believe that a military takeover or other armed rebellion would improve the situation at all.

Judging from history that's a fair assessment.

Now, couple that with what I said, and it's easy to see how being a human who desires a world free of fascism and governmental abuse is really fucking depressing.

Re:What he said in the interview

[Anonymous Coward]

Save us from Slashdotters who want the legal power to enforce their morals

Re:What he said in the interview

[Anonymous Coward]

Or those that want to tear down the existing limits.

Re:What he said in the interview

[Anonymous Coward]

was he a chicken or a rooster plz tell me now op i need this plz

Re:What he said in the interview

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Our problem is that the politicians have figured out how to go beyond that level in furthering their self-interest and no longer engage in that internal war the founders envisioned, to our deep detriment.

Political parties are the means by which they subvert the checks-and-balances inherent in the separation of powers design of our government. Party loyalty crosses each branch of the government so that they aren't in opposition to each other any more.

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

-- GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

Re:What he said in the interview

[bluefoxlucid]

Great men do not seek power; they have power thrust upon them.

Congratulations!

[jellomizer]

You released a bunch of information so the average american public can not understand it correctly, feel overtly threatened, and force them to make rushed, out of the moment changes.

We all know theses rushed out the moment policy changes always turn out good.

Anyone will know, it will take one other attack for the General public to go up and screaming back at the NSA for not doing its job, if because they didn't see it coming.

Re:Congratulations!

[cheekyjohnson]

Anyone will know, it will take one other attack for the General public to go up and screaming back at the NSA for not doing its job, if because they didn't see it coming.

That has more to do with their lack of principles (Whatever happened to "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? It never existed.) than what Snowden has done.

Re:Congratulations!

[Anonymous Coward]

You released a bunch of information so the average american public can not understand it correctly, feel overtly threatened, and force them to make rushed, out of the moment changes.

We all know theses rushed out the moment policy changes always turn out good.

Anyone will know, it will take one other attack for the General public to go up and screaming back at the NSA for not doing its job, if because they didn't see it coming.

Shut up you fool! *turns to computer camera* NO, NSA, No! We will not go running back to you if we are attacked by more terrorists. Bad, NSA, put down the bomb!

Re:Congratulations!

[AHuxley]

The US public understands the role of the Fourth Amendment, the role of supporting 'freedom fighters' and woke up to the rush for war in Syria before it was too late.
Thanks to Snowden the US courts are able to understand what was going on domestically and there is less cover for tame press and well funded sock puppets.
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa

Re:Congratulations!

[DexterIsADog]

Rushed changes? WHAT rushed changes? Do you mean the report that the President requested last July that he's now reading (and you can read it too), before deciding what changes, if any, to make to data collection policies?

Perhaps you mean the (possible) pullback on monitoring the cell phones of the leaders or our allies, like Angela Merkel. They didn't say, but I would imagine they'd stop doing that shit, at least for a while.

So, what was your point again?

Re:Congratulations!

[Anonymous Coward]

who fucking cares.

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Re:Congratulations!

[jbmartin6]

Sad part is, there is nothing they "could have done" to prevent the 9/11 attacks that was prevented by the legal actions available at the time. There was absolutely no need for any additional powers or surveillance. Since they found zip with all the new surveillance after 10 years, I think it is safe to conclude the threat is greatly exaggerated. Where were they when the Boston Marathon attacks were being planned? They were snooping on Brazilian oil companies.

Re:Congratulations!

[Anubis IV]

The American public can't understand it correctly unless they are first exposed to it. Prior to a few months ago, how often did you hear normal people using terms like "metadata"? And now?

Though the process might hurt and might not turn out perfect, it's far better that we, as a country, go through these growing pains and make these decisions now, together, rather than forfeiting that opportunity by allowing the decisions to be made for us in shadowy, smoke-filled rooms. We've gone from having no say in the matter to actually having a say, which is how it should be. Where it goes from here is anyone's guess, but at least our options are open again.

Re:Congratulations!

[MickyTheIdiot]

Rushed changes = removing more freedoms in the name of security.

Re:Congratulations!

[oodaloop]

Rushed changes? WHAT rushed changes?

Well, I encrypted my hard drive and changed my passwords. Should I have waited?

Re:Congratulations!

[Runaway1956]

I WISH that GP was wrong, and that you are right. Unfortunately - the past 12 years have proven GP to be perfectly right. Only in recent months has there been any reaction worthy of note, and the NSA seems to be weathering that just fine.

Re:Congratulations!

[Runaway1956]

The PATRIOT act, specifically.

Re:Congratulations!

[DexterIsADog]

Yes, the PATRIOT act was written and passed in 2001 as a too-hasty response to the information that Snowden released in 2013.

Thanks. Good job.

Re:Congratulations!

[DexterIsADog]

Reading comprehension FTW. I was obviously asking what rushed changes were made in response to Snowden's leaks. You know, showing the dark side of government "protection". You missed the context - next time, read it twice.

Re:Congratulations!

[cold fjord]

Where were they when the Boston Marathon attacks were being planned? They were snooping on Brazilian oil companies.

According to reports, NSA has approximately 40,000 employees and 31,000+ requests for intelligence information from other parts of the government. It not only can do more than one thing at once, it has to.

The problem with the Boston Marathon attacks was that the FBI dropped the ball - they didn't follow up on information from the Russian FSB. The NSA isn't all powerful and responsible for everything. The other parts of government need to meet their responsibilities as well.

And actually there was a way that NSA might have been able to prevent 9/11. NSA had communications of terrorists in Pakistan, IIRC, but they didn't know the other end was in California. That is where the metadata program might have prevented 9/11 since they would have been able to identify the domestic phone number for the FBI to investigate.

 

Putin Schooling Obama

[njhunter]

And by extension, US.

Re:Putin Schooling Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

who cares

It's ours?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's our fault? For what? Duck Dynasty and their comments? How the football games turnout? Oooo! American Idol is on! Goota go!

Re:It's ours?

[Anonymous Coward]

Duck Dynasty

The latest in US red herring searches

How Fowl.

NSA christmas greeting

[aliquis]

We don't want a lot for Christmas
We know almost everything we need
We don't care about the peasants
They give their information for free

We just want you for our own
You are ours Edward Snow'n
Make our wish come true oh
All we want for Christmas is you

Re:NSA christmas greeting

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you didn't spend a lot of time writing that. Just all kinds of bad there. Were you trying to fit a tune? Didn't really care about cramming as many syllables as possible in there. Are you sad this is the only response you got, after checking in 3-4 times an hour after posting? Well, maybe next time you'll try harder. Hope this criticism spurs you to new and better heights! Merry Christmas!

Re:NSA christmas greeting

[Anonymous Coward]

Merry Christmas!

Happy Holidays!

    —A "War on Xmas" jihadi Fox & Friends warned you about!

14.4 Sec. for Library of Congress

[bigfoottoo]

One of Snoiwden's coworkers told him that they were processing as much data as in the Library of Congress every 14.4 seconds. Sources say that the Library of Congress has 235 TBytes of data.
(235 [TByte] / 14.4 [sec]) X 60 [sec/min] X 60 [min/hr] X 24 [hr/day] = 1.4 X10^18 [Bytes/day] = 1.4 [Exabytes/day]

Re:14.4 Sec. for Library of Congress

[AHuxley]

Processing is what was always done, listening to a call for keywords, known numbers used, voice print - the resulting file size kept was not huge per call, person.
The flow of data in was vast but not hard for the US and UK to balance for fast processing over a few sites around the world.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering really shows the end game - decades of calls reduced to a usable size under just one simple program.
The next trick will be to have it made legal in US domestic courts, no more magical parallel construction needed :)

Re:14.4 Sec. for Library of Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft. I process twice that much porn daily.

Oh, they are worth it

[Anonymous Coward]

> he comes across as essentially saying that he's smarter and more moral than anyone in the executive, judicial, or legislative branches of government ... which seems not to be a very high bar, alas.

> he chose the nuclear route [...]

which other routes, pray tell, were open to him?

> Whether exposing the abuses of power that were happening is worth the side effects [...]

It is worth the side effects. It can be seen already.

Of course not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think the NSA has time to waste on Slashdot? We have much more pressing issues to take care of.

Re:Of course not!

[AHuxley]

The GCHQ found time for Slashdot http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/uk-spies-continue-quantum-insert-attack-via-linkedin-slashdot-pages/

Re:Of course not!

[CanHasDIY]

Do you really think the NSA has time to waste on Slashdot? We have much more pressing issues to take care of.

Like trolling WoW.

Re:Of course not!

[gmuslera]

GCHQ is already very busy with Slashdot and NSA should be far ahead of it.

Re:Of course not!

[cold fjord]

It wasn't really Slashdot they were interested in.

Re:Of course not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean they're trolling women's' forums?

Re:Of course not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, they read Sluggy Freelance. They definitely read Slashdot.

(Seriously, where did you think the name FERRETCANNON came from?)

Re:Of course not!

[Immerman]

Hey, I'm not trolling, I've got a level 27 minotaur that's... umm... trying to recruit me into his terrorist cell. Yeah, that's it. I've got to put in a good 8 hours today.. umm... cultivating my contact. Maybe 20. Sure that's a lot of overtime, but my country is worth it!

Re:Of course not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, like solving the "begging the question" issue.

Re:Of course not!

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't really Slashdot they were interested in.

Well, what were they interested in — conducting your performance review?

Re:Of course not!

[Anonymous Coward]

In the spirit of Christmas:

the saNta clauS Agency

You'd better watch out, you'd better not spy,
or try to hide out I'm telling you why -

NSA is tracking you down.

We're making a list, checking it twice,
checking you out whatever the price -

NSA is tracking you down.

We know who you're emailing, each Skype call you that you make,
we know your browser history and each highway that you take – so

You'd better watch out, you'd better not spy,
or try to hide out I'm telling you why -

NSA is tracking you down.

We know your Facebook status, each Snapchat post you make,
your ISP and IP address, and each check-in that you fake – so

You'd better watch out, you'd better not spy,
or try to hide out I'm telling you why -

NSA is tracking you down.

Re:He's working for the NSA he says....

[phayes]

That's only because they do not realise that Snowden is so much smarter/more moral than anyone else (except possibly for those who agree with him).

So there.

[leftie]

Nya.

the sea crashed in on the advancing infidels?

[Anonymous Coward]

another WMD on credit religious franchise corepirate nazi work of fiction we still believe although we know better results never vary so far http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk9mV8qBiEk though we lament never again again & again

Re:He's working for the NSA he says....

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought this was the deepest of deep cover ops. So deep even the NSA buys the cover. (Not really.)

Just another turf war

[fustakrakich]

Now that the Post is *owned* by the CIA...

Lady liberty

[Anonymous Coward]

Lady Liberty is now a corporate whore with fishnet leggings and crotchless panties, ready to take it from any corporate executive for the right price.

Snowden for President

[Anonymous Coward]

This man is a hero, he stood up for freedom of the people at the cost of his own freedom security. He stood up against a tyrannical power that sought to undermine our way of life. That is the essence of what it means to be American, fighting against tyranny.

We need new leaders who are willing to actually put themselves, their jobs, their very freedoms on the line to keep us safe. A government that sacrifices the freedoms of the people to protect itself is doing it wrong. Sacrifice is not for "someone else" to make, so we can be better off / more secure. Our current leaders don't stand up for us, they don't even make sacrifices to do what's right. They stand up for their own money, interests, and power.

Re:Snowden for President

[Anonymous Coward]

This man is a hero.

Merry Christmas to you Edward. Stay safe and keep to your principles. You have more supporters than your detractors do; ignore them for they are evil.

Good work reporting it

[gmuslera]

Now is our turn to do the acknowledge that it is happening, avoiding its worst effects, and if possible, fixing it.

And with a good precedent too.

[bluegutang]

"A republic, if you can keep it." -Benjamin Franklin

"Remember, I didn’t want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself." -Edward Snowden.

Yep.

[ledow]

I'm afraid I have to agree.

Impact of all those Wikileaks, etc. bullshit? One bloke hiding in an embassy in the UK after skipping bail, nobody really giving a shit until he comes out and faces trial.

Impact of Snowden? News stories the world over, plus demands for change in many places, and outright disgust at what's been going on behind our backs.

Snowden did exactly what he wanted (and, I would say, needed) to. At ENORMOUS personal risk. He'll never really be "safe" again.

Compare and contrast to "dickhead hiding with a UV lamp" Assange, who is going to go to jail for skipping bail and didn't have one tenth of one percent of the impact of Snowden - and is going to go to jail for NOTHING to do with what he leaked, really. Nobody even really cares enough any more, we just want him to fuck off and stop eating up taxpayer's money while he avoids justice.

Re:Yep.

[ATMAvatar]

It's possible that Wikileaks served as inspiration for Snowden. With any luck, both will serve as inspiration for future whistle-blowing.

Re:Yep.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've ever wondered how the public can have such short memories, and constantly seems to shift their attention from one scandal to the next, I suggest you look in the mirror.

Wikileak's disclosures were ridiculously influential. Not just the stuff on Iraq; there have been many corporate leaks, too.

Just because the Snowden leaks were a bombshell doesn't mean Wikileak's was ineffectual.

Re:Yep.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks was and is influential; Assage is not.

You can have one without the other.

Re:Yep.

[cold fjord]

Maybe we should hold off a bit to assess the affects. "Whistle blowers" aren't the only ones that Snowden has "inspired."

Virtually every terrorist group in the world shifting tactics in wake of NSA leaks: U.S. officials/A.

Re:Yep.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks forced the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. After WL, the PM of Iraq basically told Obama to go fuck himself and get troops out.

Re:He's working for the NSA he says....

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand it completely. The NSA has long hijacked itself and gone rogue. Look at the Clipper chip, RSA bribery and other actions. That isn't improving security it is making all of security worse because they're too damn lazy to do their job and are operating under a stupid and arrogant assumption that they can make holes "only they can access". His actions expose the one essential improvement, that we either need or have to have the NSA taken behind the barn for a functioning democracy - being under control of the people.

Best part of the story

[FuzzNugget]

We finally have a new picture of him.

Attention span?

[Runaway1956]

Attention span? Absolutely NOT! The public can't remember when 9/11/01 happened. Heck, they've already forgotten the Boston Marathon bombing.

Re:Attention span?

[CanHasDIY]

Heck, they've already forgotten the Boston Marathon bombing.

Obviated by the fact that even though the NSA keeps telling us their illegal spying program has stopped terrorist attacks, they never seem to want to talk about the ones they "failed" to stop.

Scare quotes around "failed" because I question whether the federal government ever had any intention of preventing said attack.

Re: Attention span?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not liberals. They're glad those things happened because it really woke us up to America's horrible foreign policies that created our enemies. So for libs, 19 hijackers and a pouty Chechniyan (sp) are the real heroes.

How do you get the average person to care.

[EMG at MU]

There are some people that I would consider "smart" that don't even know who Snowden is or what the NSA does. These people are successful professionals, some valedictorians of their undergraduate colleges. There is always going to be a small segment of the population that is critical of the government, paranoid about the encroachment on civil liberties, and overall dissatisfied with the status quo. But that isn't a majority. Its not even half. I would guess it's less than 25%.

Snowden sacrificed a lot for the world. I wish I knew of a way to get the world to care.

Re:How do you get the average person to care.

[Anonymous Coward]

But that isn't a majority. Its not even half. I would guess it's less than 25%.

And of those, how many are prepared to vote for someone else because of the encroachment on civil liberties?

back

[Anonymous Coward]

this Information very interesting and useful.
do not forget to visit also the following:

Portal Berita Gila Bola Football
Kabar Terkini Harian
Android Apps Dan Apk Games Gratis
KESEHATAN

This isn't a liberal--conservative issue.

[MarkvW]

The NSA's policies have remained constant through "liberal" and "conservative" administrations. This is not a liberal/conservative or right wing/left wing issue. You don't need to decide which side you are on before you decide where you stand on the issue of the NSA's bulk surveillance of American citizens. Maybe you actually ought to think for yourself on this issue!!!

The NSA is a HUGE waste of money. I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

I like the idea of the NSA spying on the rest of the world. But when the NSA starts spying on Americans, bad people--very bad people--have taken over the NSA. These people are acting just like Stasi functionaries and it is scary.

This is awful and it needs to stop.

Re:This isn't a liberal--conservative issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the idea of the NSA spying on the rest of the world.

As an American, I only want them to spy on people if they have a reason to (such as enemies). I don't want them to spy on innocent civilians, no matter what country those civilians are from.

Re:This isn't a liberal--conservative issue.

[Jason Levine]

And, I'd add that I want there to be real checks and balances on their spying activities. Not just a "secret rubber-stamp court" that approves all requests and seals them behind a "National Security" veil where nobody, not even Congressfolk with high security clearance, can see them. I understand why they wouldn't want the world to know that they are listening in on Suspect X because they might be contacting Suspected Terrorist Y, but there's got to be a way to balance their need for secrecy with our need to keep them in check.

Whistle blower protection does not exist for IC

[Anonymous Coward]

People talk about whistle blower protection and legitimate whistle blower, etc. There is no whistle blower protection for the Intelligence Community (IC). The IC is specifically exempted by U.S. law from all whistle blower protection acts. Posted via TOR, for good reason!

Re:Whistle blower protection does not exist for IC

[Anonymous Coward]

As it should be. I am more upset that computer security didn't get improved big time when the Manning stuff came out. They are good with paper security, but don't know what they are doing with digital security and encrypting files for a need to know basis.

Re:Whistle blower protection does not exist for IC

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand why there's no whistleblower protection to the IC, and I can agree with that. However, if there is no whistleblower protection then there must be a way for people to report illegal and/or immoral policies without commiting a crime, and without being ignored or worse.

The people who work there (at least those who aren't just there for the intellectual challenge) do so because they feel it is the moral thing to do. If you force them to be less moral than they want, then you get an unstable and anti-intellectual work environment. Sure, you can enforce the rules in a military fashion and threaten them with punishments but that is a really stupid strategy when you deal with highly intelligent people.

You all are blind!

[jennatalia]

This was all a plan anyway to see if certain systems worked better than others in NSA and now they get to monitor everything. RSA encryption standards too easy to break? Release information that causes people to change their algorithm so more gov't funds can be used to break the new stuff. It's not about right or wrong, it's about how much money you have to spend to influence right and wrong.

Information Dominance?

[hax4bux]

Does this imply there is an "information dominatrix?"

"50 shades of gray for your firewall?"

Re "I held my nose and voted for Obama...."

[Anonymous Coward]

Your OPTION was to REFUSE to select a devil at all. Your rationalization is THE SAME rationalization of those who supported Hitler as a foil to "Communism". Furthermore, the fact that we were only offered the completely transparent/faux choice of Obama vs. McCain was the signal that you, and the American people as a whole, were being conned. All of us have made our mistakes and had wise up opportunities. The real question for you, going forward, is whether you have wised up one whit or are just going to support the NEXT con job as you did the last.

Re:Re "I held my nose and voted for Obama...."

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you x 1000.

I'll only add that this same person clamors for "campaign finance reform". Essentially, he wants the government to make him make smart choices when he's making choices.

In other words, their admitting to being duped and hoping the government will save them from being duped again.

Snowden should have...

[Anonymous Coward]

simply anonymously dropped the contents of the hard drives via courier on the editor's desk at the Washington Post and a few newspapers in allied countries such as Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Russia. And gone back to work the next day as usual and kept his mouth shut.

They leave you no choice

[istartedi]

There are ways to address concerns about abuses of government power, he chose the nuclear route

They leave you no choice. For decades now they've been saying "we'll protect the whistle blowers" and doing the exact opposite.

I've heard some people say that this is the same mentality that put Hugo Chavez in office. Why? Because whenever a moderate left-leaning person got in office, the CIA toppled them. Thus, the only way to go was full-bore hard Left militant. It's the same logic you get when all crimes are capital. You don't steal bread when all crimes are capital. You steal a gun and a jeep, rob the bank, and bust through the border blazing away.

n/s

[JigJag]

posting here as I accidentally rated down an insightful comment

Fuck the parties. Fuck em.

[TiggertheMad]

Here is the problem though. Lets say that you vote republican, because they field a intelligent, conservative who believes in rational conservative fiscal policy (BWHAAHAHAAAAA, I know, right?) and you vote him in to congress or the senate. The next time a abortion ban or a tax on filth poor people comes up, the house wip comes marching up and threatens to cut party support unless he/she votes the party line.

The party is as much a lobbyist with immense fiscal power as any special interest. Unless party power is broken, you are going to be voting the party into an office, and not as much an individual.

Re:Fuck the parties. Fuck em.

[DuckDodgers]

I should have been more clear. I'll be voting independent or "None of the above" in national elections. I am in favor of abortion rights, gay marriage (or equivalently, a complete removal of government privileges and legal recognition of marriage in any form in favor of some sort of generic legal contract between adults), and better social services.

I realize that many people would call that a waste of the vote and bring up "lesser of two evil" arguments. I was one of them, until this year. Enough is enough, this is two parties that use several minor issues to pretend to be different while both destroying the middle class, lining the pockets of special interests, and now paving the way towards a totalitarian state with 100% surveillance. Both parties have to go.

Bullshit!

[s.petry]

How quickly we forget things like this right?

To claim that it does not happen, when we have evidence that it does happen is beyond idiotic. It is complete and utter bullshit (either intentional or from ignorance.

Re:Bullshit!

[cold fjord]

How quickly we forget things like this right?

There are at least three problems with your post. First, the revealed interest by the intelligence services in Slashdot was due to targeting some people that read Slashdot, not Slashdot itself, or its general readership. You may recall this recent story:

GCHQ Created Spoofed LinkedIn and Slashdot Sites To Serve Malware

Second, your article doesn't really apply since Slashdot is in English and is domestically (US) hosted as far as I know.

From the fine link:

The project will not target English speaking web sites (yet) but will be limited to foreign languages, including Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto. The project will be funded as part of the $200 million Operation Earnest Voice program run by US Central Command."

Third, the legal status of that sort of propaganda targeted through a US website to a US audience is suspect. It certainly used to be clearly illegal.

--------

To claim that it does not happen, when we have evidence that it does happen is beyond idiotic. It is complete and utter bullshit (either intentional or from ignorance.

You have made an inflated claim on weak, faulty evidence. Based on your precedent, shall we describe that as "beyond idiotic" and "complete and utter bullshit (either intentional or from ignorance)"?

Re:Bullshit!

[countach]

There's at least 3 problems with your post. 1. The NSA doesn't obey the law. 2. You can't believe anything written about them. 3. You're probably NSA, because who else would defend those jokers?

Re:Bullshit!

[s.petry]

You are trying to twist the meaning of my post, which I guess is fair since I did not explicitly give the reason for the link. I don't think very many misunderstand what I linked and why, but you obviously do.

So lets ask the pertinent questions. Why did I link an article where the Military is using sock puppets? Did you read what I linked?

You claimed that the Government would only use sites like Slashdot for MITM attacks. You hinted after that they could read your posts to make connections to unfriendly groups or actions. The article I posted explicitly states that the Military contract was for "Manipulating Social Media". So the article shows that your two assertions are absolutely wrong.

I did not question TFA's link, I specifically stated that you were wrong with your reason for justification. Simple.

To claim that programs exist only to read data denies facts. With everything critical of the administrations becoming "classified" you can't know that these programs are extended or ended.

He can declare victory all he wants, but it isn't.

[sethstorm]

He can say that he's won in all the ways he wishes, but the facts prove otherwise.

He will be taken into custody by the United States for the crimes that he has committed.
He will be prosecuted.
He will be convicted.
He will be sentenced.
He will serve a very long term.

The NSA will win over Snowden and live to prevent more like him through their existence beyond Snowden's own.

Or do the right thing and report him.

[Anonymous Coward]

He already had a DEROG on him and cheated on the test to get in. They would be emulating someone with poor ethics.

No cogent thought allowed.

[dtmancom]

I used to have ambition to form cogent thoughts. I used to use my logic and education to say things like, "Obamacare as a model can never be as good as what they are saying, economics doesn't work like that" and, "Maybe we shouldn't be using drones to kill people willy nilly," and "Maybe this administration should use its power to curb the abuses the American people are suffering at the hands of the TSA."

After you get called "racist" enough times for saying these things, you no longer care to try to fix the problems we face as a country. You almost start to dislike the people who call you a racist, and you almost wish bad things for them, like getting everything they claim to want from their elected officials.

Should change Anonymous Coward to Edward Snowden

[sethstorm]

Given the love for him Slashdot, they should change Anonymous Coward posts to Edward Snowden. It would work equally well for both supporters and opponents.

Re:He's working for the NSA he says....

[cold fjord]

Your statement could be taken at face value, or ironically. I wonder which you intended?

Other people think that voting incumbent is

[Marrow]

throwing away your vote. So you have two choices: Vote for the other major party challenger or voting for the third party challenger. Even if the third party can never win, their increased presence will bend both candidates towards their position to curry their votes.
Its not throwing away your vote to vote third party. You don't get a free shake if you win no matter who you vote for.

Re:He's working for the NSA he says....

[phayes]

As intended, as intended.

In my experience, the snowden cheerleaders all believe the bad consequences to their hero's acts to be inconsequential and much as similar assange cheerleaders, believe, they can do no harm or more precisely, the ends justify the means. As this is what they are supposedly denouncing in the USG...

They cannot see that a statement like my original post is sarcasm, they swallow it whole. That just makes it more sarcastic to the people with the wit to see it.

Come face the music, big boy

[Anonymous Coward]

Since he's accomplished what he set out to do then it's time for him to face the consequences. Come home to the US and face the music. He won't because he's actually been played by the Russians and Chinese and will now live out his pitiful life in the snow and ice drinking himself to death like the other spies who have defected.

Duverger my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

> Unfortunately, this position [voting third party] constitutes opting out of the political process

This meme is so prevalent and invites so much to apathy that I wonder whether it's kept alive by some secret think tank financed fifty-fifty by Dems and Reps alike.

Whatever you do (third party, no vote), voting Dems or Reps seems to be definitely the wrong thing to do at the moment.

And remember, besides voting there are a couple of other things you can (ought to) do in a Democracy.

Re:Duverger my ass

[swillden]

You didn't read my post.

NSA business ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure NSA business is sending expensive stuffs to outer space... but I may be wrong.

Still working for the NSA

[Nyder]

Snowden says he's still working for the NSA but they don't realize it. Does this mean he can sue for back pay?

Snowden, Obummer, Tea Party, Palin.

[Anonymous Coward]

gosgog:
I agree SNOWDEN did what was very necessary...NSA,& the Rest of the U.S. intelligence ( intelligence???Ha! Ha!) world had gotten totally out of hand, bad enuff under Bush2, worse with Obummer! Wonder who's running the 'TeaParty' these days, I don't think PALIN is, she seems to me to have too much good sense, I think its been taken over by the now very weird bunch called Republicans. Oh well lets see what 2014 Brings us...

Fuck him

[nessman]

Hang the fucking traitor.

Re:Fuck him

[Anonymous Coward]

Hang the fucking traitor.

You're probably too stupid to actually figure out how to hang someone. Try practicing on yourself first.

Mission acomplished? Not even close.

[gmezero]

Seriously. Nothing has changed yet. Sure a couple of U.S. companies have lost high profile contracts. But nothings changed. The NSA is still hoovering up all our data. Nothing has been shut down. Nobody has been held accountable... and the constant announcements have become just a steady noise for most people who are all out of shock juice because they haven't seen their friends and neighbors hauled off to jail for trumped up offenses.