Slashdot Mirror


USA Today Names Edward Snowden Tech Person of the Year

An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from the USA Today tech column: "...But until a lone information-technology contractor named Edward Snowden leaked a trove of National Security Agency documents to the media this summer, we didn't know just how much we'd surrendered. Now that we do, our nation can have a healthy debate — out in the open, as a democracy should debate — about how good a bargain we got in that exchange. For facilitating that debate, at great risk to his own personal liberty, Snowden is this column's technology person of the year for 2013."

228 comments

  1. USA Today by egr · · Score: 5, Informative

    And yet by the government he is named as traitor and fugitive.

    1. Re:USA Today by easyTree · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What are the corrupt power-mongering double-talking ghouls gonna do? "Oh yeah, we're the bad guy. Sue us" ?

    2. Re:USA Today by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      They tend to do that...

      Hell, he should thankful he got out alive and without being tortured.

      OOOOoooo say can you seeeEEEEEE.....etc

    3. Re:USA Today by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      . . . meanwhile, all USA Today employees can be sure that their emails are being read and their phones tapped.

      . . . you have the right of speech in America . . . and now the NSA and the FBI have the right of free listen.

      Oh, and USA Today can expect a tough audit from the IRS next year.

      I'm guessing that 2014 will be the year of "The War On Surveillance" . . . but like all other "The War On" wars . . . it is doomed to be lost.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:USA Today by Dutchmaan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe you're confusing "person of the year" as something that means good guy or bad guy.. It doesn't. It just means someone that causes change or brings things to light or causes a big splash etc... someone who greatly impacts us.

    5. Re:USA Today by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Which aptly shows what the government actually is.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:USA Today by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet by the government he is named as traitor and fugitive.

      And thus he rode off into the files of History.

      History is full of people authority called scoundrels, but the people have loved them.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    7. Re:USA Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a crap what "titles" USA Today bestows? They're the McDonalds of news media.

      That's exactly why this is interesting.

    8. Re:USA Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any last shred of respect I had for USA Today shriveled and died today.

    9. Re:USA Today by EdIII · · Score: 4, Informative

      it is doomed to be lost

      Which side?

      The only way we could possibly lose is with continued apathy and stupidity. If we lacked those attributes we could defeat them in six months. People act like encryption is impossible or something. Push open source hardware, aggressively replace firmware with custom builds, mitigate as many possible threats as you can, and use the strongest encryption wherever possible.

      Goooood news. With TAO being out in the open, and the US losing billions upon billions to its economy in the coming 12 months because hardware and software can't be trusted, you can bet your ass that the major players will be taking drastic action. Not as a PR job to the public citizen, no no no. It will be drastic action to convince me the person in charge of equipment purchasing that Cisco is still a good bet.

      Why should Cisco care? Why should I choose to utilize them for public infrastructure, secure MPLS between financial institutions, etc. when I know they have been backdoored by the NSA? Especially, when the NSA is actually the least of my worries, but other governments and entities that would do harm to my network?

      Kiss a huge amount of contracts goodbye. The worldwide consumers will most certainly be at least looking for other options right now.

      Remember, the name of the game is NOT to deny them access to your networks from a full frontal assault from the NSA, but only to do just enough to raise the costs associated with mass surveillance several orders. The NSA can't get the financial resources to be approved for several orders more than what their budget has.

      We can most certainly win.

      The problem is that we will not even try.

    10. Re:USA Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people seem to be misunderstanding the TAO story. TAO/ANT is exploiting and hacking independently of the vendors, at least in these specific stories about firmware being backdoored and such. You would not be any safer from their activities by choosing a non-American vendor.

    11. Re:USA Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe, maybe not... The usual losing 'war on X' seems to be when the government declares it. Maybe a different outcome if the 'people' declare it? A very, very, small reason to hope....bah, what am I thinking... :(

    12. Re:USA Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, they'll just continue to protect America using the powers given to them. If you don't like what they are doing then blame who gave them those powers.

    13. Re:USA Today by mrspoonsi · · Score: 1

      and Time are the biggest cowards going...naming the Pope (I have nothing against the Pope, just that I see Snowden has done so much more last year).

    14. Re: USA Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are assuming the US vendors try really hard... maybe they don't. Maybe other units of NSA make sure of that. Like the broken ellipictic curve PRNG.

    15. Re:USA Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm guessing that 2014 will be the year of "The War On Surveillance" . . . but like all other "The War On" wars . . . it is doomed to be lost.

      Or rather like other 'wars', we will end up with more of it.
      A war on literacy... more illiterate. A war on drugs... more drugs. A war on terror... more terror.

    16. Re:USA Today by daem0n1x · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nobody gave them those powers. They just took them, and most people didn't give a fuck. The few that gave a fuck were rapidly silenced by the Corporate Propaganda Machine, a.k.a. The Media.

    17. Re:USA Today by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear? -Yossarian Catch 22

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    18. Re:USA Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just by the government. There are lots of people who do realize that a large portion of his information has nothing to do with U.S. public awareness and cause great harm to the intelligence collecting ability and, consequently, indirectly puts people in danger.

    19. Re:USA Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You just found the perfect Supreme Court argument. While there is no such thing as a right to free listen (the idea is actually the opposite--you just don't listen to what you don't want to hear, i.e. change the channel, turn off the TV, etc.), nobody should be allowed to intentionally try to pry and listen to something that they couldn't reasonably hear in a public situation. This should mean anything that is encrypted is considered private... and to all you fuckers that think that the government should be allowed to listen to "protect" us, We the People of the United States not only do not need your protection but We also do not desire it--that's what the second amendment's for.

    20. Re:USA Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet by the government he is named as traitor and fugitive.

      I know it's not a popular opinion, but I think he is a traitor. Regardless of whether you think what he did was right or moral, he stole classified secrets from the government and released them to the world, and he made us all less safe as a result.

      Ben Franklin notably said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". What did Snowden do for American citizens? Did he give us liberty, or safety? Neither. He took away our safety without providing freedom in exchange. We're no more free but significantly less safe.

    21. Re:USA Today by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Nobody gave them those powers.

      Nonsense. Look at the reelection rate of the people who 'took' this power. We hand it to them on a silver platter.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    22. Re:USA Today by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...the USA will have "Giuliani time"

      Oh shit! Another Reagan!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    23. Re:USA Today by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No, it's true. Nobody game them those powers.

      We elect people with the expectation that they will uphold the Constitution. Increasingly of late, they have not done so.

      That is not the fault of the voters. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the elected politicians.

    24. Re:USA Today by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      You are wrong. We reelect them despite what they do. It is the voters' fault for that.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    25. Re:USA Today by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      It's easier to reelect the evil that you know rather than risk the evil that you don't know.

      Especially when the evil that you know has so much money and is so vocal about saying how much more evil the other guys are.

    26. Re:USA Today by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Re-election is not what I was talking about. However, I agree that if you re-elect someone who is violating your rights, you should take a long look in the mirror before blaming anyone else.

    27. Re:USA Today by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Re-election is not what I was talking about.

      Ah, but I was :-) And at a rate of over 95%, that means something.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    28. Re:USA Today by deconfliction · · Score: 1

      "The Media". It is a double edge sword. But never forget that "freedom of the press"'s more literal interpretation equates to "freedom of the media". Unless you give others the freedom to spin things their way, the better angels won't get a voice.

  2. If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Edward Snowden is a shoe in.

    Of the untold numbers of spooks working in / for NSA, Ed Snowden is the only one who has the conscience and the courage to reveal the dastardly unconstitutional secrets of the NSA.

    Thanks, Mr. Snowden, for what you have done for the country !

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Did you see his appearance on Channel 4? He seems to have dropped a little weight - I guess being targeted by those the run the 'land of the free' amusement ride takes its toll :S

      Sad that humanity hasn't evolved wholeness yet :'|

      Not that I'm a particular believer in things religious but if we were to think for a moment about the line "The meek shall inherit the earth", these fucks have got to be running from the inevitable. Oh yeah, Happy New Year!

    2. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      I had an epiphany recently about what that "prophecy" actually meant.

      "The meek shall inherit the earth"

      Ever wondered, especially considering our current trajectory, if what might be meant is that the world will only have the meek left, people having completely butt sexed themselves as a species?

      It would be one of those awesome "twilight zone" style reveals at the end of the show, wouldn't it?

      I am soooo hoping that is what was meant...

    3. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 0

      The food in Russia sucks.

    4. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spot on the money, and very unpopular with the crowd here. Distorted thinking is the rule here.

    5. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Of the untold numbers of spooks working in / for NSA, Ed Snowden is the only one who has the conscience and the courage to reveal the dastardly unconstitutional secrets of the NSA.

      Actually, two other guys did; William Binney and Thomas Drake. Unfortunately, they went through official channels, so they got harrassed and prosecuted by the government, and without the massive trove of documents Snowden exfiltrated, they were ignored and marginalized by the major media. Their experience is what convinced Snowden that he had no choice but to go outside.

    6. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by BringsApples · · Score: 0

      What's he done for the country? If anything, he's pissed all other countries off, and America is hated even more now. The American people may be upset about their rights, but all that will happen, in the end, is that they learn more about how the law works, and that 3rd-party's aren't The People's private-keepers that everyone thought they should be.

      Until I see all of the information that he has, I believe nothing other than what's above.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    7. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by gweihir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed. But these two can now take some comfort in the fact that they allowed Snowden to see that official channels do not work. There never is only a lonely hero, there is always a need for some people to prepare the way. And humanity has never been kind or thankful to its heroes either. But I think Snowden understands that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by maugle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The NSA is a spy agency by charter. Spies can and do go beyond the letter of the law in order to fulfill their mission of protecting their country from its enemies... it would be shocking if they didn't.

      This is America. Nobody is supposed to be above the law, especially the government.

      Congress may not be concerned with the NSA's actions, but they've already proven themselves willing to trade away our freedoms wholesale so that they can claim to be "tough on terror" during the next election cycle. We need to hold their feet to the fire and make them reign in the NSA.

    9. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Snowden was a traitor who helped America's enemies and geopolitical adversaries (the latter group includes China and Russia)...

      And I think you're a flaming idiot and apologist.

      Take a look at Article Three, Section 3 of the United States Constitution. Now answer this for me: When and where has Edward Snowden levied war against the United States? When and where has he adhered to its enemies or provided them with aid/comfort?

      I assure you China, Russia, etc ALREADY knew what the NSA was up to, because they do the same thing. All Snowden has done is bring the NSA's unconstitutional actions to the forefront of public thought; shining some daylight on their activities in the hopes these vampires burn. Snowden's only "crime" has been to piss off the political elite, and then manage to escape their retribution (for now).

      So no, Edward Snowden is not a traitor by any definition that matters in this country. He has been very careful to release information in a way that, as much as possible, avoids collateral damage. This is in stark contrast to, say, grabbing whatever "secret" data you can, putting it on a flash drive, and emailing it to Julian Assange, damn the consequences.

      Let me drive that final point home. I am explicitly saying that if Edward Snowden's actions are treason, then by your same definition, Bradley Manning is a traitor as well. Think about that for a second...

    10. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is America. Nobody is supposed to be above the law

      Then I take it that you agree with the government's prosecution of Aaron Swartz.

    11. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government isn't, Per NBC news (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/27/22072205-new-york-federal-judge-rules-nsa-phone-surveillance-is-legal?lite) The NSA was acting within its constitutional bounds. Everyone here is happy to throw blame at the government, but no one is even willing to consider that what Snowden did was not even slightly heroic. If Snowden wanted to be a hero, and thought what the government was doing is wrong, he could have gone to a congressman and would be safe under the Whistleblower Protection Act. Any Tea Party congressman would have been happy to ride the "peoples rights" wagon to re-election on that ticket. Snowden would have been the hero people make of him. Snowden is a sellout who took what he had and likely ran to the highest bidder with the info.

    12. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, Mr. Snowden, for what you have done for the country !

      I'm sure the country appreciates what he has done. In time he may even be honored with a parade.

      And in time, your pathetic treasonous bootlicking ass will be utterly
      forgotten by the entire human race.

    13. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 3

      The NSA was acting within its constitutional bounds.

      Only if you ignore the constitution completely and instead choose to appeal to authority figures and believe government propaganda.

      he could have gone to a congressman

      Would that have resulted in the American people becoming aware of their government's crimes? The answer is, without a doubt, "no." I applaud the fact that Snowden let the American people in on the specifics.

    14. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything revealed has been perfectly legal under the constitution

      Nope. When you start appealing to authority figures, you've already lost something important: Independence.

      The judicial branch has hundreds of legal precedents interpreting what constitutes "reasonable" and "search and seizure".

      The judicial branch can rule that 1 + 1 = 3; I'm not going to believe them. In fact, the supreme court has even overruled itself in the past, so this "The Supreme Court is automatically right!" type of thinking is paradoxical at best.

      you yourself are advocating violating the constitution.

      You're an idiot. Having an opinion that differs from that of some judge's is not at all advocating that we violate the constitution. They are two completely separate things.

      Saying your comment is the truth is just absurd, and does not make it so.

    15. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      But these two can now take some comfort in the fact that they allowed Snowden to see that official channels do not work

      They were beta-testers of whistle-blowing, performing important Q&A testing on the process so that the final release could make it out to the public without any major bugs.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    16. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Rather like Snowden and you then.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    17. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      I applaud the fact that Snowden let the American people in on the specifics.

      Can you identify the specifics that weren't known before? (excluding revelations concerning spying on other countries).

    18. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by deconfliction · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That was beautiful. I only wonder if we'll see the day when Snowden, Manning and Assange are granted freedom. And when the inmates at GITMO are allowed to tell their stories in complete detail, and we are allowed to hear them.

    19. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      The color of law efforts to work around or in other ways use parallel construction have gone to an open US court.
      http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/court-declares-nsa-spying-program-unconstitutional-and-grant
      Other open US court rulings will follow as the issue moves up the US courts.
      The problem is the US unconstitutional aspect is very clear - legal precedents, 'interpreting", "events" do not undo the Fourth Amendment.
      The good part is the US legal system has to clear on what it will do. Will the Fourth Amendment protect freedom of speech, association, contact with the press, public expression of faith, political support, protest, charity work, travel, reading of books/web use... open courts, warrants under oath and cross examination of witnesses...?
      Further work before US courts will really be defining - no protection or total protection?
      No protection will subject any defendant to a closed conversation between a judge, their defence lawyer and the gov over discovered material.
      No option to cross examine, call witnesses, have the material made public, no real oath on how or where or when the material was collected, the chain of custody would start with documents been presented in court on the trail day..
      The legal US system would be reduced to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber after a multimedia presentation for a select few cleared court officials.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    20. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      It actually speaks to humility.

      Only those that are humble and gracious will inherit the Earth. Cocky, egotistical narcissists need not apply.

      Which, let's face it. The majority don't really meet the standards for meekness in the bible anyways.

      Don't worry. If you actually survive some sort of Armageddon and are left with the meek, they will at least be nice people.

    21. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather like Snowden and you then.

      Snowden is world famous and will certainly be remembered in
      history books.

      You're just some schmuck who gets paid to spew
      propaganda, and no one will remember you, because your
      kind is not worthy of respect or remembrance.

      I am a nobody, but at least I haven't sold my honor
      in exchange for a regular paycheck like you have.

      Don't you get it ? You are famous for being a piece of
      shit, here on Slashdot. No one likes you, no one other than
      redneck morons agrees with you, and all you do is spew
      bullshit that anyone with a brain can smell miles away.

      .

    22. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're entitled to your own opinions about Snowden and that's your business if you disagree with his actions. What you're not entitled to is your own facts, which you are doing by claiming he's a traitor. Treason has a specific legal definition which his activities do not meet the standard of. Disclosing classified material might fall under espionage or something lesser. To claim treason you would need to show willful action on his part to aid and abet an enemy, which he has not done.

    23. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Oh, it's blessed are the MEEK! Oh, I'm glad they're getting something, they have a hell of a time."

    24. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem burdened by a perverse imagination and foul mouth. How sad for you. If you were abused as a youth you should seek counseling.

    25. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 3, Funny

      Shut up, big nose!

    26. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Only if you ignore the constitution completely and instead choose to appeal to authority figures and believe government propaganda.

      You may recall that the Constitution itself includes provisions for a Supreme Court, and empowers Congress to create lesser courts. They might reasonably have a say, don't you think? The Constitution has had to be applied to many situations since 1789 and there is much accumulated legal precedent to consider. If you ignore that you aren't adhering to the Constitution so much as making up your own law.

      Would that have resulted in the American people becoming aware of their government's crimes?

      It still hasn't. His leaks have only revealed strategies, activities, methodologies, and technologies. No crimes, only things declared to be crimes by the uninformed or ideologically inclined.

      I applaud the fact that Snowden let the American people in on the specifics.

      He also let Iran, China, Russia, and al Qaeda in on the specific. His leaks caused many diplomatic problems for countries such as Indonesia, Australia, the UK, the US, and others. It is nearly all damage with little benefit. Your judgment is faulty.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    27. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      To me, none of Snowden's revelations were particularly surprising. The NSA is a spy agency by charter.

      Weren't you surprised by a revelation that a single person working at NSA could get that much data and walk away with it?

    28. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by easyTree · · Score: 2

      It's seeming increasingly likely that the meek will all have been turned into food by the power-mongering ghouls.

    29. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      Many of us understand the idea of countries spying on each other, even if it's "bad" it's pretty much a fact of political life. The problem is that US citizens are supposed to be outside of the NSA's jurisdiction. If this was the FBI instead...it would be pretty crappy, make people mad, but is at least within their sphere. The NSA knows their not supposed to be collecting our info, do it anyway, and lie repeatedly about it. That's the problem here.

    30. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      is that even possible? How can someone identify something that isn't known?

    31. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ironically you seem to have deliberately misspelt your name, cold fnord.

    32. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by gordo3000 · · Score: 2

      I think you need to legal lesson on the difference between the US and a common law country. Legal precedent means nothing in so much as the law is concerned. It is ONLY a guide for how other people have decided in a similar situation and at ANY TIME a judge can rule in a way that is completely against previous precedent (see the entire civil rights era for a long series of these rulings).

      The only law in this country is the written law and, as criminal law goes, the only proper group to make any statement about it is a jury in a courtroom, and at times a judge in some limited circumstances (this isn't the Japanese system).

      Anyways, it has made the american people aware of our government's crimes. There is a ruling that specifically says their actions are unconstitutional, i.e. violating the highest law of the land. There is another ruling that says it is ok because it is a tool that only works if you have mass surveillance (which basically can be interpreted is that you only need to follow the constitution unless you break it on a large enough scale). This will go up the courts and most likely we will have a ruling by the supreme court on this (the only court, constitutionally, that matters).

    33. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      wow you guys are really coming out on this one. James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, claimed that "[PRISM] cannot be used to intentionally target any US citizen." The White House said "This law does not allow the targeting of any US citizen or of any person located within the United States." Apparently even though it's "not allowed", per the White House, and is a direct violation of the 4th amendment...

      Honestly, I don't even know why we (the people here on /. who are actually logged in) are even feed you trolls. You guys know your wrong, and are just being a bunch of asshats.

    34. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      It's not that he revealed anything, it's he provided the hard proof of what we all knew was happening.

    35. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I don't believe it's possible for you to see that.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    36. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      That was beautiful. I only wonder if we'll see the day when Snowden, Manning and Assange are granted freedom. And when the inmates at GITMO are allowed to tell their stories in complete detail, and we are allowed to hear them.

      Please don't lump those two groups together.

      Snoden exposed government lies and unconstitutional overreach, and I think he did a courageous thing which will ultimately be good for the country (in the same way that Firesheep was ultimately good for internet security).

      Gitmo is full of really dangerous and nasty people who were most likely plotting to murder innocents for the cause of religious zealotry. I'd have a really hard time taking any of their stories at face value when those same people would have no qualms about sawing my head off in front of a videocamera for the world to see while shouting praises to Allah. I'm not sure why you'd have a hard time believing people like that exist when they've so willingly documented their own atrocities for the world to see.

      I'm not saying we shouldn't question the government with a critical eye on stuff like this, but it's not exactly a stretch of the imagination to believe that there really are some very nasty sorts out there, such that the world is better off if they never see the light of day again.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    37. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I think you need to legal lesson on the difference between the US and a common law country. Legal precedent means nothing in so much as the law is concerned.

      See: WHICH COURT IS BINDING?* - Mandatory vs. Persuasive Cases - Page 4

      Anyways, it has made the american people aware of our government's crimes.

      Alleged crimes, not in fact. Every time they have been legally adjudicated the NSA's actions have been found legal.

      There is a ruling that specifically says their actions are unconstitutional, i.e. violating the highest law of the land.

      No. There is a preliminary injunction based on the judge's expectation that he will find for the complainant, but it is suspended for appeal. Even if he does decide that way the judgment will have to survive appeal. There are problems with his ruling as seen by law professors, and precedent is against him.

      We agree that this will probably end up in the Supreme Court at some point. The most likely outcome is one consistent with previous cases.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    38. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure he's no longer eligible to participate in this parade, and was never eligible for this one, but I could be wrong.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    39. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... he's pissed all other countries off ...

      So other countries are angry at Mr Snowden? So other countries aren't angry that their (self-serving) trust of the USA was abused?

      Other countries need the USA for its technology, its so-called stable currency, its world-police duties. This awakens everyone to the true price of subservience to a super-power.

    40. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by deconfliction · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Gitmo is full of really dangerous and nasty people who were most likely plotting to murder innocents for the cause of religious zealotry.

      That is a load of complete and utter bullshit. If I wanted to spend 5 minutes netsearching mainstream sources I could easily refute that. GITMO is filled with political prisoners, that have long since paid for their crime. Even if every one of them had Osama Bin Laden's bloodlust to kill innocent U.S. citizens, freeing them all would still be an enhancement to the long term security and liberty of U.S. citizens. Holding the GITMO detainees as we have, and I might add 4 years beyond Obama's day 1 in office signed pledge to get them the hell away from GITMO, ... holding them there is an absolute stain on the nation of the United States of America the likes of which only the terrabytes of revelations of Snowden can compete with.

    41. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the problem is that they are breaking laws, not that what they do is actually wrong; then the law should be changed.

    42. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by oobayly · · Score: 1

      You're comparing Snowden to Philby? The quality of your trolling as really gone downhill recently - I hope that you're not unwell.

    43. Re: If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess his weight loss is tied to a proper diet and lack of HFCS and gene manipulated junk in every staple of his food.

    44. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Gitmo is full of really dangerous and nasty people who were most likely plotting to murder innocents for the cause of religious zealotry.

      The charge them with the crimes they're accused of committing. If you're going to hold foreigners up to your principles and beliefs then it's insanely hypocritical to not afford them the protections that you believe people deserve.

      I don't disagree that there are some very dangerous people held at Guantanamo Bay, but to detain them without trial for years on end means that the US government has lost every scrap of respect when it comes to "protecting peoples' rights"

    45. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that you are a lawyer by now.

      Also, the constitution is the highest law in the land, and they broke the 4th all over the place. Enough people writing to their congress-critters can get something done about this... let alone lost business (boeing contracs, IT contracts...) Deal with it.

      --
      C|N>K
    46. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by bds1986 · · Score: 1

      Gitmo is full of really dangerous and nasty people who were most likely plotting to murder innocents for the cause of religious zealotry.

      How dangerous does this man sound to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamdouh_Habib

      He was arrested on bullshit reasoning in Pakistan, tortured, locked in Gitmo for 3 years (despite supposedly being a terrorist and having inside knowledge of 9/11), and then released without charge. Government officials have admitted he had nothing to do with terrorism, yet nobody has been held accountable for that.

      If these people are heinous criminals then give them their trial and be done with it already. Criminals still have rights, and that includes the right to have their side heard.

    47. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As DutchGun says, they are not in the slightest related. Snowdon revealed crimes commited by the US government against its own people and other nations. He exposed massive over-reach legally and a startling level of pervasiveness, which also must imply huge unnecessary costs financially and many abuses we don't and will never know about. Nobody is saying close down the NSA but it definitely needs to be fixed. Obama's blind defence was not the best strategy.

      Manning did what he thought was right but was clearly in the wrong. He accidentally helped millions of people, though often there was a human cost for each success, but severely embarrased his own government. The torture of Manning by the US government was inexcusable. He should be granted freedom on the basis of his punishment having already been served (I know incarcerated time was taken into account but not the torture). Considering the failed promise to close Gitmo, allowing torture on American soil was not Obama's best strategy.

      Assage doesn't need to be freed, he isn't being currently directly persued by the US. He is being persecuted in a war by proxy. First the UK government illegally throwing him into solitary confinement, then the Swedish being leant on behind the scenes to prosecute for something that would not even me a crime in any other country. It's all a bit pointless though as Assange is just a journalist, easy to replace. Calling in so many foreign favours for somebody so unimportant was not really Obama's best strategy.

      The bizarre thing from a viewpoint abroad is that all the leaks have revealed the US to be incredibly smart and actually quite well meaning people. The US government response to the leaks has been vindictive and completely unreasonable bordering on unstable. They seem to be constantly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Such a shame.

      Phillip.

    48. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      He seems to have dropped a little weight - I guess being targeted by those the run the 'land of the free' amusement ride takes its toll :S

      It's actually pretty normal for Americans to lose weight after living in Europe for a few months. Probably a combination of diet and there not being a social phobia of having to walk more than 30 feet.

    49. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even redneck morons agree with this piece of shit. It's only the other government shills and the pro-government bootlickers who agree with him. This cock knocker is so extreme and an obvious troll that even most of the ultra left wing big government supporters on Slashdot won't agree with him. I hope he dies in a fire slowly and painfully.

    50. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And the pathetic shit bag cold fjord tries posting anonymously and replying to himself to spew this same shilling drivel.

      DIAF, cold fjord, DIAF

    51. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by anmre · · Score: 1

      Can you identify the specifics that weren't known before? (excluding revelations concerning spying on other countries).

      Sure: http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files

      Welcome to the internet.

    52. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      So other countries are angry at Mr Snowden?

      No, they're angry at the US officials that are trying to be the eye-in-the-sky in a world-wide sense. But since people in other countries cannot vote on American problems, these things always end up getting taken out on the American people.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    53. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but you might want to work on your remedial reading skills. To answer the question "can you identify the specifics that weren't known before?" means give examples of things that you now know that you found out about because of said actions and otherwise would not have known. It mentions nothing about things which are unknown currently.

    54. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    55. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by deconfliction · · Score: 1

      I also agree there are likely some very dangerous people held at GITMO. And I completely agree with everything you wrote, so I'll just quote it along with this news story which hit just hours after my score 5 'release all the gitmo prisoners' post- (could be I subconsciously knew of the scheduled release, though the article mentions nothing of the procedural timeline or any events which triggerred this 'milestone')

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25558891
      "
      31 December 2013 Last updated at 10:32 ET
        Guantanamo Bay: US hails 'milestone' release of Chinese Uighurs
      "

      (Parent comment from oobayly that I would self-mod higher than my score5 'free them all' comment. Though I believe that freeing them all is a net US security win compared to freeing/processing-out-of-gitmo none of them, or freeing/processing-out-of-gitmo them as slowly as the U.S. has been)

      The charge them with the crimes they're accused of committing. If you're going to hold foreigners up to your principles and beliefs then it's insanely hypocritical to not afford them the protections that you believe people deserve.

      I don't disagree that there are some very dangerous people held at Guantanamo Bay, but to detain them without trial for years on end means that the US government has lost every scrap of respect when it comes to "protecting peoples' rights""

    56. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by YumoolaJohn · · Score: 1

      They might reasonably have a say, don't you think?

      Not from what I've seen, no. Look, it's clear from the rest of your comment that you're the type of person who has no mind of your own and instead just blindly believes everything authority figures tell you, at least on certain issues. On other issues, however, you distrust the perfect beings who work in government for inexplicable reasons. Ah, well.

      I don't care about your precious legal precedent.

      It still hasn't.

      Of course you'd feel that way. Nothing your superheroes do is a crime. Because they say so.

      He also let Iran, China, Russia, and al Qaeda in on the specific.

      In case you haven't noticed, I'm more concerned about freedom.

    57. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      Sure but can you mention any specifics?

    58. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      I know what the common interpretation is mr literally minded.

      I am postulating a hollywood end of movie twist grand finale big reveal in the super HD movie that is life.

      Although I hear the book is better...

    59. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually speaks to humility.

      Only those that are humble and gracious will inherit the Earth. Cocky, egotistical narcissists need not apply.

      Which, let's face it. The majority don't really meet the standards for meekness in the bible anyways.

      Don't worry. If you actually survive some sort of Armageddon and are left with the meek, they will at least be nice people.

      Well, the whole Armageddon thing says that this current Earth will be burned to a crisp. Then Earth 2.0 will be created to replace Earth 1.0, and will be populated by survivors of Earth 1.0 -- exactly which survivors and how isn't spelled out, although it involves the resurrection of the dead.

      Interestingly, if you look at how Earth 1.0 is supposed to end and the "pool of fire" that those rejected by Yaweh are supposed to be thrown into, there are some definite similarities.

      Then let's look at meek: In the Greek New Testament, “meek” is from the Greek term "praus" which denotes strength brought under control. The ancient Greeks employed the term to describe a wild horse tamed to the bridle. So "The tamed shall inherit the earth" might be a better translation, as the modern meaning of "meek" is significantly different from what it was in 1706 when the phrase was coined in English.

      So... which Earth did Jesus mean when he said the tamed would inherit it? Food for thought.

    60. Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may recall that the Constitution itself includes provisions for a Supreme Court, and empowers Congress to create lesser courts. They might reasonably have a say, don't you think? The Constitution has had to be applied to many situations since 1789 and there is much accumulated legal precedent to consider. If you ignore that you aren't adhering to the Constitution so much as making up your own law.

      If there is any right that can be asserted as being retained by the people under the 9th Amendment, or reserved to the people under the 10th Amendment, it is the right to ethical practice of law. Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible.

      Legal professionals, as a class in society, are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the legal system. A legal system that is contradictory, excessively complex, or even just "confusing in the eyes of ordinary people" is a legal system that creates an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals.

      To the extent that the "accumulated legal precedent" makes the legal system contradictory, excessively complex, or even just "confusing in the eyes of ordinary people", that accumulated precedent violates the right to ethical practice of law and is in violation of the Bill of Rights.

      It is worth remembering that two states refused outright to accept the Constitution without a Bill of Rights, and in others promises were made that such a document would be added and the ratification was thus, in practice, conditional. Hence, it follows that the Bill of Rights can be taken to supersede anything and everything in the original Constitution in the event of conflict.

      The right to ethical practice of law thus supersedes the establishment of the Supreme Court and lesser courts.

      It is also worth remembering that James Madison added the 9th Amendment (allowing for the assertion of unspecified rights retained by the people) to address the issue posed by the Anti-Federalists that any Bill of Rights would be incomplete. This issue was so important that it gets repeated in the 10th Amendment (allowing for the assertion of unspecified rights reserved to the people): the only place in the Bill of Rights where an issue is so important it gets repeated twice!

      The Bill of Rights is thus an open-ended document. The people have the right to assert fundamental rights not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights. Such rights supersede the authority of government at all levels. This is built into the highest law of the land. The right to not be spied upon by one's own government is clearly a right being asserted by the People.

      Further, rights retained by the people being "retained by the people", any rights so asserted can not be taken away by any entity of government, for if they could be taken away they would no longer be retained -- a contradiction.

      Any rights the people so choose to assert thus supersede the authority of precedent, whether made at the Supreme Court, or at lessor courts. A ruling by any court that violates rights reasonably asserted as being retained by the people is thus an ILLEGAL ruling, with the judges involved being in violation of the oaths they have sworn to uphold the Bill of Rights.

      Further, another right that can be asserted as being "retained by the people" can be derived from the Nuremberg Precedent. Thus, a right exists to expect government officials and legal professionals to be responsible, as individuals, for refusing to obey laws (or precedents, or court orders, or executive orders, or warrants) that are contrary to any right that might reasonably be asserted as being retained by the people. For a district attorney to enforce a combination of law and precedent that violates fundamental rights (such as happened in the Aaron Swartz case) is thus illegal conduct. For a judge to allow the NSA to spy on the people in general is also illegal conduct.

      Such people are no different from

  3. Consequences more for World - USA by jkrise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In my view; the revelations have far more impact for nations in the World other than the USA (you know; such nations do exist; and are home to 20 times more people than in the US). But when the Internet is controlled largely by the US; and these revelations indicate even more erosion of other nations' peoples' rights; the debate must include the entire World. One fears that just like the US Presidential debate; the implications for the rest of us will be ignored totally.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:Consequences more for World - USA by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Well, is the internet really controlled by the US? It certainly isn't in China. You can use the same methods they do.

      Your rights are the job of you and your government to protect. There will always be people looking to abuse them. It isn't the duty of some other government to protect them. It's the job of YOUR government.

      Trying to assert that it is the duty of the US to protect your rights - well there certainly is no precedent for that sort of thing in world history.

    2. Re:Consequences more for World - USA by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      And something tells me that the US will soon loose control over the net because of this...along with billions of dollars as companies abandon US companies, throw our hardware away, and will refuse to have it inside their country...and the biggest reason is the fact the NSA has been shown to spy on other countries and then use that information for the US's financial advantage.

      In fact, I'll bet that soon having said equipment will cause the companies insurance rates to rise to compensate for the known security holes contained within, and the fact that it is fiduciary unsound to use equipment that has been shown to allow competitors to spy on said financial dealings. This coming blowback will hurt the US far more than the NSA's collection of text messages ever will. When Cisco, Dell, MS, etc find their contracts not renewed because of non-trustworthy and knowingly exploited holes that they purposely put in there...even though we all knew they had been like that for a long time until now a CFO could just write it off as some "conspiracy theory". Now there could easily be shareholder lawsuits when some NSA spy turns over SAP's future software roadmap they grabbed to Microsoft, because they can prove SAP should have known better and where not being fiduciarily responsible.

    3. Re:Consequences more for World - USA by tom229 · · Score: 1

      Completely agree with this.

      The fact that the NSA is intercepting all foreign communications that go through the United States is only news for the naive. What is news, is that their influence is so absolute it threatens the integrity of the largest US corporations. Their corruption reaching to the absolute depths of products and standards pushed by NIST, RSA, Cisco, Microsoft, and google is astonishing.

      As a Canadian IT professional this takes hosting anything in the US completely off the table. Furthermore, I'm actively looking to replace any Cisco hardware, Microsoft software, and really anything proprietary. My new philosophy is 'If I can't see the code, it's not secure'. Of course, this is going to be a massive challenge; especially since the corruption seems to reach all the way to the hardware firmware and driver level.

      This is not only going to be a massive and unfortunate challenge for the international community, but a necessary one.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  4. We all know that already by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What are the corrupt power-mongering double-talking ghouls gonna do? "Oh yeah, we're the bad guy. Sue us" ?

    They do not need to tell us.

    We already know.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:We all know that already by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      And even if we didn't know, if they really and truly had changed their ways and could honestly say they were good -- We still couldn't trust them. Once you find out a spy is a double agent, you don't ever trust them again.

  5. this is USA Today we're talking about by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    free output at most motels.

    1. Re:this is USA Today we're talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A McAward from McPaper, and the quality of the column written to back it up reflects that. The only two points made by the columnist are self-contradictory (NSA spying is a deep existential threat to every American; NSA is so inept they can't connect the dots even when they are all lined up in front of them).

      But hey, they love it here on Dice.

    2. Re:this is USA Today we're talking about by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      It's not that the NSA can't connect the dots...they can and do, they just can't tell anyone most of the time because they broke the law to do so and whatever they discovered isn't valuable enough for amnesty.

    3. Re:this is USA Today we're talking about by oobayly · · Score: 1

      The two aren't mutually exclusive. To use a car analogy, an inept and careless driver driving an ineptly designed and built car will be a threat to other road users.

  6. This could be avoided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, if only he turn himself in. I hear they serve McDee's at Guantanamo now!

    1. Re:This could be avoided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do they still serve those cockmeat sandwiches?

    2. Re:This could be avoided by easyTree · · Score: 3, Informative

      I understand you can get those on the outside, if you're missing them :P

    3. Re:This could be avoided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ketchup dispensers are serving lube and salt'n'pepper bags have been replaced with condoms.

    4. Re:This could be avoided by EdIII · · Score: 3, Funny

      The ketchup dispensers are serving lube and salt'n'pepper bags have been replaced with condoms.

      Condoms? That's like eating a sandwich with the saran wrap still over it....

    5. Re:This could be avoided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tube steak sandwich

  7. Of course he's man of the year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He wrote half their stupid info-graphic stories for them! Snowden was their most productive employee, so of course they should award him a prize.

  8. "The smug mantra that there is no privacy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that the USA Today columnist has brought it up, I'm much more worried about the invasion of individual privacy by big businesses, including the major Internet companies, banks, credit card issuers, and credit agencies, and phone/cable companies, than with surveillance of phone calls and web activity from the NSA/FBI/CIA. It is getting to the point where they can assemble comprehensive journals of daily activities (transactional or otherwise), combined and collated with data of record, on every person in the country (not to mention foreigners), and use them to model and predict our future actions.

    1. Re:"The smug mantra that there is no privacy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big business just wants your money. Wants to market to you better. Their motives are simple. Pure greed.

      The NSA on the other hand has much more disturbing things in mind with the privacy invasion... They want control. All of it. From what you can do, where you can go, what you believe, to how you live. and also the totallity of what big business wants as well.

      Pure greed is evil yes. But compared to the other? I'll take the greedy spys... You'll at least be getting a good deal on shoes.

      Evil you can see and understand is simple to deal with.

      I'm not saying it's acceptable. I'm saying we should focus our resistance to the greater danger for now. the nsa/fbi/cia/whoeverthefuck.

  9. You mean "shoo in", of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mr Snowden is not being given shoes.

    1. Re:You mean "shoo in", of course by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      In Russia?

      Shoes for Industry!

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  10. Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Edward Snowden is a big a danger to the US today as the Soviet Union was 4 years ago.

    No argument there...

  11. Well Hell by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    That and a full pardon would get him back where he'd be if he'd never brought these things to light.

    Yep, he's jumping around like a five year old on Christmas morning.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  12. Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bullshit, the traitors are those in government ignoring the constitution and illegally spying on the citizenry. It needs to stop now.

  13. Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To all you idiots out there, if you've got nothing to hid then you have nothing to fear. Edward Snowden is a big a danger to the US today as the Soviet Union was 4 years ago. He should be executed without trial.

    Thank you for that brilliant insight into your psyche, Mr. Mussolini - by the way, your brown shirts are ready at the cleaners.

  14. Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The internet being what it is I am rendered unable to decide whether this is sarcasm, irony and/or a troll.

    So I decided to investigate what else you have written in an attempt to solve this mystery. I don't know as yet WHY I did this as I really don't give a flying fuck what your motivations are so that mystery will have to wait until I see my therapist next.

    You have many posts listed as flamebait etc but also many listed positively.

    So it appears you are very good at generating strong reactions from others. Unfortunately this does not really answer my original question.

    However comments such as this: "lol Euro-weenies always finding an excuse to lick boot"

    and this: "Conviction should be quashed and a full "royal" apology from the inbred German layabouts in Buckingham palace."

    Lead me to finally decide that, based on a balance of probabilities, you are indeed a troll in this instance but, unlike other species of troll, actually possess the capability to write sensible and thought provoking comments. This does not make your trolling here better, but worse.

    So shame on you.

  15. Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's some excellent detective work, Mr Fancy Pants.

  16. Next in news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "USA Today was raided by the Internal Revenue Service of the U.S.A. today."

    1. Re:Next in news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not as funny these days when it's actually likely to happen

  17. Re:Soon to be forgotten. Very soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come Wednesday, Snowden will be last year's news, and nothing of consequence will change. Meet the new year, same as the old year.

    Given how everything he says is taken as gospel, the massive confirmation bias going on, I sort of expect to find out that he has exaggerated or fabricated some things and he will quickly become yesterday's news like that army private who dumped data to wikileaks.

  18. The press and the people... by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...are divided as usual, but many seem to applaud what he did. I do.

    The government however is not divided that I can see. They want his ass on a platter. Strung up, drawn and quartered with his parts sent to the four corners of Scotland as a message. This is telling in this day and age of 'partisan' bickering to keep the masses distracted with largely inconsequential issues. Patriotism is not serving in office. Or recording every bit of data you can weakening our country, technology and economy in the process, to supposedly protect us. It is not giving lip service to the constitution, while you wipe your arse with it by your actions.

    It is about standing up. It is about saying wait, this is NOT what MY country is supposed to be. It is about being able to stand up to a Tory, or a Tea Partier, or a Donkey and saying "fuck you, give me my rights, give me my liberty, or give me death", to paraphrase Patrick Henry. It is not in cow towing to the powers that be, but resisting the ever reaching yoke of the powerful.

    But we don't stand by and large. We listen to Fox news and MSNBC talking heads and nod. We scream at our football games or hope to see a blurred nipple slip on TMZ. We laugh at cat memes and snapchat sext our co-workers while the spouse is away. We wonder at the changes in the climate then get into our unneeded and wasteful SUV.

    What happened to our spine? The one that beat the brits? The one that helped show Germany and Japan where they could put it when they wanted to remake the world into their bleak image? Why are we more interested in goatse, and goth chicks and godzilla than righting our government? Why can 10 random people not discuss issues without at least 1 to 2 people completely derailing any progress? Why do we continually bend over while those in power plum our innermost depths to their own ends?

    I wish I knew the answers. I though many of these thoughts as a teen 20 years ago. Then I had the optimism to think that we were on the brink. That we would stand, that a revolution was imminent. That the way things were would be changed and we had the power to do it. I was cynical then, but had hope. Now I think I am a defeatist. I would like more than just a few people to prove me wrong. The Snowdens of the world are currently the exception that proves the rule. Why is this?

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:The press and the people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On the plus side, I see no spelling errors or grammatical errors --- so I bet you get high grades in English.

      Cow towing?

    2. Re:The press and the people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why can 10 random people not discuss issues without at least 1 to 2 people completely derailing any progress?"

      Probably FBI COINTELPRO plants?

    3. Re:The press and the people... by lakeland · · Score: 1

      Ok, so it had a few cliches in it.

      But it seems to me that the GP has a point. I'm not old enough to know what it was like during say McCarthy's witch hunts and how many people stood up for what is right. Was it a very small minority while most people just went about their lives, or was there wide public dissension? I do remember in the early 80s that there was fairly active opposition to Apartheid rather than the current defeatist apathy. That was a bit different though because most countries had abandoned it and it was more a matter of imposing our views on an unwilling minority than changing a more powerful group. The largest protest I can remember from recent history is the 99% movement and even that seemed to largely die out after a few weeks.

      More succinctly: "Is the general populace's apathy to the issues of the day unique to our generation, or is this normal?"

      PS: Cow towing rather than Kowtowing, though since it's from Cantonese I am not sure you could call anything a misspelling.

    4. Re:The press and the people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed you resumed my angst, my teenaged hope and my mid-age disillusions in a succinct post, thank you for wording what I was feeling

    5. Re:The press and the people... by wbr1 · · Score: 1
      It seems you and a few others have decided to disagree. But instead of succinct counter arguments I am met with derision and ad hominem. Yes my post was clichéd. There is a reason things become cliches, normally because there is a basic truth in there. Still, no one has answered why, or skillfully debated other options.

      Both I think prove my original clichéd conjectures. Some times I wonder if this type of inarticulate attack is really do to some deep seated inner loathing at recognition of oneself in the original argument.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    6. Re:The press and the people... by shadowofwind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People were more aggressive and less risk adverse in the past, and not as self-absorbed, but for the most part were never willing to stand up for what was right. For example, when Thomas Paine was in prison in France, the founding fathers left him hung out to dry. Nobody stood up to stop the genocide against Native Americans. There was a regional power struggle between the north and south US, which had different cultures, but poor southern white men did essentially nothing to help black men. America fought Germany because Germany declared war on the US, not because they were willing to fight Fascism, and the US did very little to help Jews escape. America fought Japan because they were pissed about Peal Harbor, not because of what Japan was doing in China. Very much of the domestic opposition to the war in Vietnam came from people who wanted to stay home, enjoy benefits of birth control pills, penicillin, and smoke weed, not because they had a more principled objection. I could go on.

      I think its possible to understand a lot about "why this is", but we've got to be willing to give up our own vanity, and face the possibility that our ideals not only will not but can not be realized in anything like the form and time-frame that we may have hoped for. Our problems go very, very deep, its not like humanity just went off the tracks a few decades ago or even a few thousand years ago. Study animal behavior closely and you'll see that its all fucked up to, in pretty much the same ways. Maintaining idealism in the face of this takes an incredible patience, and a kind of courage. If we value courage, here's something to prove ourselves on maybe.

    7. Re:The press and the people... by jazroc · · Score: 2
      I would like to attempt to take your points a bit further...

      You mentioned that "we don't stand up". As I see it, there is a lack of inherent and true empathy for each other and certainly no strong sense of union... as if we were all living under the same "roof". Why? It seems that it's by design, in part, and also a consequence of our own selfish tendencies as the short-lived self-aware (mostly) animals that we are.

      A few things that are important, in my opinion, to consider around the fundamentals of our system (not just government... but that will weigh-in heavily):

      - We are taught to believe that our vote counts

      -- This doesn't really seem possible without proper checks and balances in place... and when you add-in that elections are largely driven by money... how could the vote count above a regional level? It's not whether you CAN buy an election... we openly encourage it. (Citizens United decision is only another brick in that already massive wall)

      - We celebrate heroes and individual achievements over "fanfare for the common man"

      -- In sports when there is a goal, the person that last touches the ball gets all the credit. We all realize that's not possible without the rest of the team, but we still celebrate and idolize the person with the ball over the others, by and large.

      -- In business... CEO's get massive compensation in comparison to their actual contribution to the bottom line itself. Too many examples to list.

      - Our attention span is under attack

      -- Instant gratification over true comprehension

      -- 30 second sound bytes are enough for many people to form a lasting impression and opinion on almost any subject

      -- There's so much data coming to us, constantly, that it's almost guaranteed we'll forget REALLY important information

      -- We've proven we're easily distracted by the next shiny object in line. Sandy Hook could be at the top of the headlines and it only takes a celebrity passing, a scandal in pop culture or a new iDevice to divert our attention and muddy the waters of change.

      All those things you mention... the lack of spine and the former achievements and ideals established by the foundational architects... those folks didn't live in this tiny, fast-paced and commercialized world that still puts more emphasis on terrorists than asteroids, more stock in self-worth than philanthropy. In those days (pre-tech surge) the people around you REALLY mattered and had a great deal of impact on your chance for survival. Now, we are all walled-off in our huMan caves.

      IMHO, even though it's very dark to think so, we as co-inhabitants of this tiny rock will only stand together again when we face something threatening that is quite severe for everyone at once. It may not last (note previous asteroid reference) long, even then. In the USA, we tend only to "care" when we have had the chance many, many times already and there is simply no other option left... and then even after we have missed that chance.

      I probably shouldn't have started this without having the energy to finish... but I have had many of the same questions my whole life, not just recently. I don't see today as anything but the likely outcome as it appeared to be decades ago. Us "rich" folks on the planet are so very selfish. Our time is short and we think of ourselves as SO important... when we are simply a blip. We are so preoccupied with short term goals and outcomes.

      I'm going to keep dreaming, jamming and hoping... and working within my own circle of influence. Best I can offer the planet right now, I think.

    8. Re:The press and the people... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Wow. This post you just made has forced me to rethink a few perspectives I have about Founding Fathers and my presumed judgement that we were losing spine "these days."

      And you are right; America's "spine" has always been a vain illusion -- it never existed.

      This actually gives me hope, because we may not be deteriorating into osteoporosis, we just have to find a way to evolve into walking upright!

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    9. Re:The press and the people... by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

      " Still, no one has answered why, or skillfully debated other options. "

      Communism was beaten, few people are starving, access to education is easy, there are no major wars looming and the world doesn't seem likely to blow up tomorrow.

      There is a serious problem with the attitude of your original post in that you claim an exclusive right to criticize this "apathy" (and if someone gets annoyed in your head you call it "an attack" like you just did above).

      Apathy is a choice! Furthermore apathy is a luxury and we have this luxury now!! It was a hard-earned right to apathy, really.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    10. Re:The press and the people... by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      "poor southern white men did essentially nothing to help black men"

      Poor southern white men were (and are) the worst oppressors of black men, who they saw as potential competitors for jobs.

    11. Re:The press and the people... by ravenscar · · Score: 1

      I think you've seen one too many movies about the glories of revolutions. I've read a bit about the phenomena. With few exceptions they share a common theme - they are bloody, cruel, and frequenly result in regimes worse than those they hoped to replace. So let's see what awaits in revolution:

      1. I face death from battle, exposure, starvation, disease, etc. on an almost daily basis.
      2. It is highly likely that at least one of my kids would lose their life. Not to mention that all of them would be pulled from the education system and have their childhoods ripped away and replaced by a nightmare of death and destruction.
      3. There would likely be significant damage to the country's infrastructure that would last well into the future - prolonging the issues from numbers 1 and 2.
      4. We'd probably end up with a regime far less concerned with freedom than the one with which we started.

      I type this from a warm home, stocked with food and medicine. My family is close by. Police, fire, EMT are all here at a moments notice if there is a problem. I have access to more information than has ever been amassed in human history - at my fingertips in seconds. My kids go to great schools. We can use roads to get anyplace we wish for hiking, biking, skiing, hunting, fishing, etc. In short, I (and most Americans) live a life that is the stuff of dreams for all past generations.

      You are saying that we should give up all the things in the second paragraph in favor of all the things in the list? Because someone is reading my email and searching me before plane flights? You go first.

      I completely agree with your sentiments regarding the government overstepping its bounds. Talk of revolution, however, just seems absurd (at least from my station in life).

    12. Re:The press and the people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism was beaten,

      Err....China?

      few people are starving,

      2.3 million children die each year directly due to malnutrition. That's one every 15 seconds.
      According to World Hunger, malnutrition is a factor in at least 5 million child deaths per year worldwide. Hardly what I'd call "few people."

      access to education is easy,

      Easy to say this when you live in North America....

      there are no major wars looming

      Other than terrorists behind every blade of grass intent on blowing us all to kingdom come....

      and the world doesn't seem likely to blow up tomorrow.

      Other than all the terrorists that want to blow us to kingdom come.....

      I realize the whole terrorist thing is a red herring. But if there are no terrorists wanting to blow us up, then there's no need to spend the billions we (you, really...as I'm not American) are spending to prevent them. You either need to agree that the government is horribly wasting money on this, or think that we're in serious trouble at the hands of terrorists who want to blow us all up. Regardless of who you believe, you should be pissed at one of two groups: politicians, or terrorists.

      Apathy really isn't an option for this situation.

  19. USA Today reported on NSA's spying in *2006* by globaljustin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ironic, then that it was USA Today who first broke the story about NSA warrantless wiretapping and phone metadata collection ***in 2006***

    NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

    From that article, again, this was REPORTED BY USATODAY IN 2006:

    The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
    The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime

    Snowden is a dupe at best...he's probably being blackmailed...but assuming the best, any way you look at the situation, he was duped by high-level criminals or foreign governments, or both, into doing this.

    He's probably being blackmailed. He's not a free man in Russia. All the reports indicate he's essentially in jail when not being paraded in front of reporters.

    Again...this info was reported by USA Today itself...in 2006...Snowden just gave operational details.

    The "national conversation" about privacy could have happened w/o Snowden releasing that info. We US citizens could have demanded more transparency w/o Snowden releasing this info...

    Because...we already knew it was happening. Snowden told us it was called 'Prism'

    Even Senator Ron Wyden was sounding alarms on the Senate floor, before Snowden's document release....this from 2011: Senators Say Patriot Act Is Being Misinterpreted. Remember the PATRIOT ACT people?

    One last time, as my first link shows, the USA Today reported on the NSA phone meta-data program with significant details **in 2006**

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:USA Today reported on NSA's spying in *2006* by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Is this a scenario for a movie The Falcon And The Snowden?
      If not, you have a thumb big enough. We'll call you. -- Hollywood

    2. Re:USA Today reported on NSA's spying in *2006* by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ironic, then that it was USA Today who first broke the story about NSA warrantless wiretapping and phone metadata collection ***in 2006***

      And they had... what evidence, exactly? "Inside anonymous sources" is not the same as thousands of pages of documentation. That old article had very few details, no proof, no names, and nothing that actually proved anything whatsoever. Snowden showed what was actually going one, that it was illegal, and exactly how far it went.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:USA Today reported on NSA's spying in *2006* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is far from the first time that the NSA has done something like this. Anyone who didn't know it was going on was a fool. Even though the article didn't present details or names, all that is unnecessary; it is not hard to imagine governments doing something like this, and especially so if you give them the (illegitimate) authority to do so through laws like the Patriot Act!

    4. Re: USA Today reported on NSA's spying in *2006* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So parent... How long did you work in psy-ops before being promoted to social media propagandist?

    5. Re:USA Today reported on NSA's spying in *2006* by EdIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think you or the OP of this particular thread gets it at *all*.

      It's not that we now know about the NSA and what they were doing. We most certainly did.

      It's that we have FUCKING PROOF.

      In 2006, I was saying much the same things. I had high hopes for Obama because I honestly thought he was going to give us justice over some of that telco bullshit. Of course not. I was naive.

      What Snowden has done, and deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for, is give me CREDIBILITY.

      Now when I have a calm, not so agitated, san tin-foil conversation with somebody now about security, I get taken seriously.

      I'm being asked right now what it would take to raise the level of security for several companies. What chat software could we use that is heavily encrypted? What should we be doing to vet hardware?

      Most of it is of course executives wanting their conversations to be discrete so it can't be used against them, but that is progress nonetheless...

      At the very least now when I talk about mass surveillance I don't see rolled eyes and skepticism. I have their attention.

      Thanks Snowden.

    6. Re:USA Today reported on NSA's spying in *2006* by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, I feel Obama should give his Nobel to Snowden. He deserves it far more, and is risking his life to let the world know what's going on. And I'm in the same boat too...finally the "it's not paranoia when they really are after you" has been proven to be true to the rest of the population.

    7. Re:USA Today reported on NSA's spying in *2006* by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's proof enough that Snowden matters that we're talking about this now and we weren't in 2006.

    8. Re:USA Today reported on NSA's spying in *2006* by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's all talk, nothing more. Come election time a democrat or republican will win.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:USA Today reported on NSA's spying in *2006* by deconfliction · · Score: 1

      I agree strongly with your comment in general, but Snowden didn't show "exactly how far it went". He provided some proof of some amount of wrongdoing. But I imagine there is still plenty of wrongdoing that Snowden didn't become aware of, or acquire evidence of. But still, those wrongdoers are probably feeling a lot less secure in their deeds these days. And that is a win too.

  20. Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "we didn't know just how much we'd surrendered."

    I find this insulting. Read FISA, read the Patriot act and related bills. If you interpret the language liberally(meaning as open ended as possible) then you will realize all that Snowden leaked was already known. And if you think they'd never do that, then you're putting your head in the sand, they don't pass laws for no reason.

    1. Re:Huh by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Knowing something is different from having the facts available for most people. There needs to be a catalyst that makes it clear to them. Snowden did just that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  21. It doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your 'debate' is out in the open so your advisories know exactly where you are watching or what you can track, then what is the point of debating? The 'civil libertarians' (who lost the last election), get their way. And then Snowden/Glenwald are in control until the NSA comes up with new ways to monitor the bad guys and keeps their secrets locked up a lot better.

    1. Re:It doesn't work that way by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe. But "locking the secrets up better" comes with a price in efficiency. Of course, the NSA can eventually bankrupt the US if it gets all funding it wants to have and needs to keep secrecy intact (hence huge overheads in getting anything done). Maybe that would be the best outcome and maybe even the one with the least casualties. If, on the other hand, they manage to establish a totalitarian regime in the US, that would be hugely more costly.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:It doesn't work that way by fido_dogstoyevsky · · Score: 1

      If your 'debate' is out in the open so your advisories know exactly where you are watching or what you can track, then what is the point of debating? The 'civil libertarians' (who lost the last election), get their way. And then Snowden/Glenwald are in control until the NSA comes up with new ways to monitor everybody and keeps their secrets locked up a lot better.

      FTFY

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
  22. Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whoosh....

  23. Re:Soon to be forgotten. Very soon. by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Come Wednesday, Snowden will be last year's news, and nothing of consequence will change. Meet the new year, same as the old year.

    I've been wondering this too. Will Edward Snowden's revelations ever lead to a better system in USA? Usually I just hear Americans pointing fingers at other countries and saying "they are doing it too!". I don't know, maybe it's damn hard to start a revolution to change everything. But some day Snowden runs out of juicy documents to leak. Then things will cool down, people forget the whole issue in a few months and NSA gets to continue doing its same old job without interferences. Right?

  24. Here Here ... Jolly Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found this laughable:
    "Now that we do, our nation can have a healthy debate — out in the open, as a democracy should debate — about how good a bargain we got in that exchange."

    Really!

    I'd say, "[Un]Civil War" against the Unelected Government of the U.S.A.

    Let the "Blood Flow!"

  25. Congratulations! Peace prize next! by Zibodiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He deserves all the recognition we can give him. Whether he did things the right way or not, he did what he thought he should do for the good of Americans, even though he knew it would result in his becoming a refugee in another country, or possibly imprisoned and tortured here in the states. He didn't do it for money, and I doubt he did it for fame; he did it because his conscience told him he had to. He is a patriot who deserves to be treated as one. Here's to hoping he gets a Nobel Peace Prize.

    1. Re:Congratulations! Peace prize next! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's to hoping he gets a Nobel Peace Prize.

      Why? Does he plans to monitor everyone and kill brown people all over the world, blaming everything on Bush?

    2. Re:Congratulations! Peace prize next! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't do it for money, and I doubt he did it for fame; he did it because his conscience told him he had to.

      Wow, you must really know the guy. Are you friends? Hang out a lot? Have lots of conversations with him? Or perhaps you stared deeply into his soul and liked what you saw? So why did he take all that foreign intelligence stuff first to China, then to Russia? Did his conscience compel him to dump all these secrets on the adversaries? Maybe they opened up to him and reciprocated in kind and he is planning on bringing that intelligence info back with him. He was so moved for the US populace that he dumped all that foreign intel to Russia and China.

      With friends like that, who needs enemies?

    3. Re:Congratulations! Peace prize next! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you must really know the guy. Are you friends? Hang out a lot? Have lots of conversations with him? Or perhaps you stared deeply into his soul and liked what you saw? So why didn't he take all that foreign intelligence stuff first to China, then to Russia? Did his conscience compel him to refrain from dumping all these secrets on the adversaries? Maybe they tried desperately to get him to open up to them, but didn't and yet the countries still let him pass and remain in their land, putting the USA to shame. He was so moved for the US populace that he dumped his life in the USA and is a fugitive in foreign countries.

      With 'enemies' like that, who'd still want to ally with the USA?

  26. Not a Tech "Thing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is known for breaking a spy scandal. The subject there is intel. Tech had nothing to do with it (except that the files he stole were digital, for all I know, all of them were). Very little tech here. Very big intel. The theme does NOT apply to snowden.

    1. Re:Not a Tech "Thing" by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      the most amusing fact is that he developed some back-up system that gave him access to all of this, AND THE NSA IS STILL USING IT.

  27. USA Today by tpstigers · · Score: 1

    Who gives a crap what "titles" USA Today bestows? They're the McDonalds of news media.

  28. Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Troll or NSA Sock Puppet ??

  29. All records are being spied on, not just the phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Again and again we need to keep telling that all phone conversations, call logs and the contents, as well as all internet activities including (but not limited) to emails (and their contents), internet searches and any internet activity (including social networks), together with all other digitazeable records (healthcare, prescription, library, movie, gun ownership, hobbies, religious, tax, train and airline travel, banking, EZ pass, and automatic plate number readers, smartphone location, etc) as well as your analog records is a fair game now and can and will be searched by automated intelligence software and human analysts from cia, fbi, cia, dea, irs, ssa, tsa, dhs, and many other organizations within USA as well as multiple countries outside United States, who will know you better than you know yourself.

    This does not, of course, does not include tailored operations and human intelligence.

    While that famous judge who ruled that spying on americans is a fair game. Why his rulling was silent about other nations (israel, germany, sweden, uk, australia, canada, new zealand etc) who are recipients of NSA intelligence on US citizens, NSA provides raw data. I thought NSA is supposed to be guarding against spying agasint US persons, not provide their data to third parties and commercial entities.

  30. Snowden should have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    released the unredacted documents and remained anonymous. To ensure public exposure for the actions of the NSA all that was required was to widely distribute the materials to media in multiple countries.

    1. Re:Snowden should have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      released the unredacted documents and remained anonymous. To ensure public exposure for the actions of the NSA all that was required was to widely distribute the materials to media in multiple countries.

      Unfortunately, if he had remained anonymous, we'd never hear about it. Going public and taking ownership was (in my opinion) done for his own personal safety. By loudly proclaiming "yes, it was me!" it becomes impossible for him to be disappeared without a lot of people asking questions. Had he remained anonymous, they would have found him eventually, "taken care of him", and then discredited the evidence.

  31. I remember when... by ApplePy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back in my day, the *Russian* spooks defected *to* the *USA*.

    Now get off my lawn!

    Except that's damnably creepy when you think about what a change that is.

    --
    That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    1. Re:I remember when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In soviet russia spooks defect from you

    2. Re:I remember when... by GrBear · · Score: 1

      Back in my day, the *Russian* spooks defected *to* the *USA*.

      ... and given jobs at the NSA bringing their expertise.

    3. Re:I remember when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/new-us-spy-satellite-features-world-devouring-octopus/">This little article from Ars Technica gives you a rather large hint that the US spy agencies embrace "creepy".

  32. Read moar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's called documentary evidence: Hersch is "certain that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden "changed the whole nature of the debate" about surveillance. Hersh says he and other journalists had written about surveillance, but Snowden was significant because he provided documentary evidence. "Editors love documents. Chicken-shit editors who wouldn't touch stories like that, they love documents, so he changed the whole ball game,"" http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2013/sep/27/seymour-hersh-obama-nsa-american-media

  33. There goes his credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for any credibility he has.

    Or perhaps its an NSA conspiracy to discredit him. Hmm.

  34. Social engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMHO Snowden is more of a social engineer (with warped values and sensibilities) than a great techie.

  35. Correct! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same with Time Magazine. Every few years over the last many decades, they would name someone Person of the Year who many Americans would consider and evil person. People like Hitler, Stalin, Kissinger....
    Inevitably Time would get criticized for naming someone the criticizer hated.
    There is a logic to this. The old Victorian ethos of unmentionables (women's navels, etc.), carried over to concepts and people. If the sphere of discussion and information is walled offed to verboten people, concepts, etc., then they never get a 'hearing', and can't rise to any level because they are 'invisible.' See also 'taboo.'

    1. Re:Correct! by timeOday · · Score: 2

      In theory. Remind me who was Time's Person of the Year in 2001? Osama Bin Laden, naturally?... no, it was Rudy Guliani. And here is a USA Today article from beforehand on their connundrum, on the difficulty of making the obvious pick. So, it's pretty clear Snowden isn't considered as radioactive as Bin Laden, anyways.

    2. Re:Correct! by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... who was Time's Person of the Year in 2001? Osama Bin Laden, naturally?... no, it was Rudy Guliani.

      Remember that this choice was made a little less than four months after 9/11, and the popular reaction to the event was so bad that women in California were ordering their dogs to attack people who "looked Muslim" at freeway rest areas. Time is published from New York City, ground zero for the bulk of the attacks.

      I suspect they figured that if they gave Osama the title there'd be another building brought down - by New Yorkers with sledgehammers.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:Correct! by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the list includes Hitler in 1938, Stalin in 1939, Khomeini in 1979. I'm not sure any of those were more palatable than Bin Laden...

    4. Re:Correct! by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      Maybe just as repugnant but also *safely* half a world away... It would be like a magazine in the U.K. declaring Hitler, "Man of the Year" just after the blitz began.

  36. Enough of these government shills by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    LOL all these "anonymous cowards" posting pro-government public relations. If they're tonguing government's balls why would they need anonymity? I smell government public relations all paid for with your taxpayer dollar.

    Way to ignore another story and the FISA finding that the government was breaching the Constitution. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/16/judge-nsa-surveillance-fourth-amendment/4041995/ http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/08/22/fisa-court-ruled-nsa-program-unconstitutional-said-nsa-misled-them/ That you're ignoring these smacks of a shill. The right and left are united on this. On the other side are government workers like yourself living a parasitic existence off the hard-working taxpayer.

    > Snowden is a sellout who took what he had and likely ran to the highest bidder with the info.
    Not a shred of evidence do you have. Now get a real fucking job, you piece of shit government shill.

    1. Re:Enough of these government shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL all these "anonymous cowards" posting pro-government public relations.

      Mr. Steve Jobs, instead of innovating, your company has concentrated on trying to sue your main competitor out of the market. And your response to customer complaints was to inform them they were "holding it wrong", wasn't it, Mr. Steve Jobs?

    2. Re:Enough of these government shills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL all these "anonymous cowards" posting pro-government public relations. If they're tonguing government's balls why would they need anonymity? I smell government public relations all paid for with your taxpayer dollar.

      I'm anonymous b/c I don't want another stupid account just to make comments and slashdot is one of the few places that let's me do that. Does it matter that I'm "Johnny250"?

  37. We haven't surrendered by erroneus · · Score: 2

    That's the thing that I can't get past. We haven't surrendered anything. We haven't "traded" security for liberty. We haven't made any bargains of the sort. All of these "erosions" on our freedoms and rights have been perpetrated against us without our will and without our knowledge. They have lied and cheated and stolen from us our birthrights as humans as recognized and defined to us under the US constitution. And without the revelations, the world would still be living under the huge, thick blanket of lies.

    Are we all expected to blame ourselves for "voting someone in"? This goes back futher than many people know and isn't tied to any one president or any one political party. We keep wanting to simplify everything to the point that we simply can't and do not want to understand the full scope of the disillusionment we are experiencing.

    1. Re:We haven't surrendered by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Thank you for this comment.

      The last time I voted FOR a Presidential candidate, it was Dennis Kucinnich. I voted for Ross Perot instead of Clinton before that.

      When choosing between Obama against a small gaggle of morons, crooks and fools, I held my nose and voted for someone I knew wouldn't take us far away from the Bush era policies. I don't vote FOR keeping GitMo open or making all treaties a joke with Drone assassination programs. I didn't vote FOR austerity measures when a simple, well funded public works project could have quickly ended the recession and created more demand.

      I'm sick of a blanket of blame when there are specific individuals we can name who manipulate the system and benefit from it. There are about 40 people in this country if locked up in a detention center, would make the country a better place.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    2. Re:We haven't surrendered by Hatta · · Score: 1

      No, we blame ourselves for not taking to the streets.We have a list of grievances far worse than those found in the Declaration of Independence. By failing to do anything about them, we have surrendered.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  38. Re:OMG by db10 · · Score: 0

    lol this reminds me of that Jack Nicholson scene in a Few Good Men.. '...my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!' Sorry Jack, the audience cheered when you were arrested and escorted away in cuffs.

  39. Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woosh to you actually. You did not see the intentional irony in his comment at all.

  40. Re:OMG by db10 · · Score: 0

    this is a great tag team attempt at a derail.. I'm fascinated at all the attempts to derail, so many different angles and attempts, it's like a crash course in media manipulation. The presence of evil in this thread is overpowering, in a very real sense.

  41. Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR by fido_dogstoyevsky · · Score: 2

    To all you idiots out there, if you've got nothing to hid then you have nothing to fear. Edward Snowden is a big a danger to the US today as the Soviet Union was 4 years ago. He should be executed without trial.

    Thank you for that brilliant insight into your psyche, Mr. Mussolini - by the way, your black shirts are ready at the cleaners.

    Respectfully fixed that for you.

    --
    It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
  42. Except that we're not a democracy. by Chas · · Score: 1

    Seriously. How many times do people need to be beaten over the head with reality before they actually acquire the correct information.

    We're a democratic republic.

    We have democratic forms of selection for various public offices.

    What we do NOT have is direct rule by the citizenry.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Except that we're not a democracy. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Seriously. How many times do people need to be beaten over the head with reality before they actually acquire the correct information.

      We're a democratic republic.

      We have democratic forms of selection for various public offices.

      What we do NOT have is direct rule by the citizenry.

      "Democracy" is colloquially used to generalize any form of representative government in which power is ultimately wielded by the people, whether directly or indirectly, which includes democratic republics like ours. Frankly, I'm not sure the distinction matters except in an academic sense, since there really aren't any "pure" democratic governments operating in the world anyhow - it's a largely theoretical and wholly unpractical form of government at any sort of significant scale, for obvious reasons. So, it's not like we're conflating two competing types of governments in actual use.

      A democratic republic could also be classified as a "representative democracy", a specific type of democracy. In this line of thinking, I just don't see how it's inappropriate at all to call the US government a "democracy", as any such reference is obviously identifying the broad category and not the specific definition of a pure democracy. To read it otherwise is, I feel, to almost deliberately misread the obvious intent of the statement.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Except that we're not a democracy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. How many times do people need to be beaten over the head with reality before they actually acquire the correct information.

      How many times do we need to beat you over head with the Bill of Rights before you'll understand the issue being discussed?

      The Bill of Rights, the highest law in the land, provides for the assertion of unspecified rights "retained by the people" (9th Amendment), and "reserved to the people" (10th Amendment).

      In the USA, as a consequence of the Bill of Rights, laws, precedents, warrants, executive orders, governmental policies, and judicial orders are ONLY valid to the extent that they do NOT violate any right the people might reasonably want to assert as being retained by or reserved to them.

      No court can change this. No judge can overrule it. No law can alter it. Every senior executive, every member of Congress, every police officer or government agent, and every judge has sworn an oath to uphold this, as a precondition for holding office.

  43. Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    copy and paste much? You just posted the exact same statement 18 minutes ago.

  44. Re:OMG by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    it is pretty weird, isn't it? I've never seen postings like these before...maybe someone at the NSA has decided to get on here and post all of this...

    Hey Slashdot admins, any chance you'd tell us some IP's of these ACs? I bet most of them come from the Ft. Mead or Utah area...

  45. Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real reason Obama’s poll numbers are down are because of his support for the NSA. His putting security through secrecy and their crony laws over truth, has put his ratings in the doldrums. He thinks Snowden’s empowering our adversaries and straining relationships with our allies more detrimental then the fear in the populace of an NSA out of control. Who many think will turn on us, on a dime, once they’re, the NSA, is wholly politicized.

    His, Obama’s assumptions based on basketball, thinking the other team more lethal, and about to score again and that the opposition’s fans are everywhere even among our populace . That the NSA protects the team, and our people this way. That people don’t change; that evil will always exist in the world. That adversaries will eventually fall to greater power. That our history is good evidence for that. So we need to be hard nosed about our security.

    Those being the assumptions, the world view of most of the policy makers in our foreign policy establishment, i.e. our Military, Oil, Industrial and Intelligence communities in the US and elsewhere. Despite what’s come from Snowden’s leaking.

    Namely we've been notified as to how close we are to, ‘1984’. We've been shown once again, how those who think they’re trying to protect us can so easily lie to us. We’ve been alerted to the suicidal amount of money involved in intelligence gathering. We’ve been given an opportunity to assess the efficacy of our spy and intelligence gathering services. Even those in the Intelligence community, were given a opportunity to access what they’re doing here on the earth at this time. At least those who haven’t been totally captured by their assumptions, and their world view, like the one listed above, and by the money and their indoctrination. Who like sheep can only justify and rationalize their peeping and blacklisting in order to maintain their jobs, outlook and equilibrium.

    Yet with a different set of assumptions about the workings of the world, all that supposed hurt and damage, that Snowden did, that all falls apart. Knowing spying and intelligence gathering is more often perceived by others as nefarious, thus fear producing, which people will defend against. That one’s enemies are entities developed by fear and opposition albeit unconsciously? That enemies are a function of their opposition’s policies as much as they are a function of their own greed and dogma. That an adversaries lethality is a function of your own. That they’ll attempt to match, or even better yours. That this years enemies are next years friends if you play you cards right, an look for win-win solutions, explain what your doing, by winding down tensions and establishing trade and economic ties.

    That openness and truth allows you to make decisions about efficacy. Whether spying really protects you and yours. If it isn’t just setting your grand children up for wars in their time and generation. That spying isn’t just duping for enmity. That people in the world can evolve up and away from enmity by choosing differently and having different assumptions, thinking strategically.

    There’s plenty of evidence in history for this as well. So with this set of assumptions Snowden’s more like a savior. Saving the NSA that is, giving it a chance to reform into an agency that works for veracity instead of its opposite. So the question is, which set of assumptions do you want carved on your tomb stone, by you son’s and daughter’s when you die, telling the sky what you did, who you were and why?

  46. Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

    if you've got nothing to hid (sic) then you have nothing to fear.

    There are two great responses to this oft-repeated mantra:

    I've got nothing to hide from those I trust.

    or

    I'm not doing anything wrong in the bathroom, but that doesn't mean I want the world to see what I do in there.

    The desire for privacy doesn't imply any sort of wrongdoing.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  47. He's Un-trialble by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    I don't suppose Snowden will ever be stupid enough to turn himself in, but what if he were standing trial here in the USA? The public, particularly the tech public, would come to his defense, maybe even with civil disobedience. I would, if I could.
    Maybe the government *can't* try Snowden because of the public respect he's garnered.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
  48. Greed by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 1

    Problem is it's way beyond terrorism and well into commercial espionage. Here a politician used Australia's spy agency to spy Timor Leste's government to help Woodside Petroleum screw them over in negotiations. The politician is now an employee of Woodside Petroleum. This is one case we know about. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/lawyer-acting-for-east-timor-is-raided-by-australian-agents-8983566.html

  49. Re:OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More poisoning of the well, quick on the heels of a red herring. Tag team, in deed. Deflect, evade, deny... never take responsibility.

    At worst, you did this; at best, you let it happen. It's not like there was a shortage of people screaming about these issues long before Snowden decided to take the law into his own hands. For all your sound and fury, though, you know that you shoulder some of the blame for this. And that's like a wonderful little taste of heaven every time one of you self-righteous jackasses goes on a tear about some conspiracy to silence the rage that you've only very recently, conveniently enough, discovered.

    You're a terrible person; get used to it.

  50. Re:OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Out come the strawmen... snd you guys accuse me of trying to derail! Outrageous!

    I'm not arguing for the NSA's actions; I'm arguing against your manufactured outrage. You either knew what was going on, or you're too dumb/lazy/whatever to read the fucking laws that your congresscritters pass. Either way, your loud trumpeting about the shame of it all is just so much piss in the wind. You had your chance to stop it -- we all did -- and actively chose to sit idly by while our system was hijacked. You're as much to blame as any legislator, and Snowden just gave you the out you needed to make a stink while shirking responsibility.

    But hey, as long as you can serve up some copypasta from IMDB, everything's okay, right? You get to beat your chest and shout down anyone who threatens to show your fictional world-view for what it is... just another day at Slashdot.

  51. And this is why.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the media is nothing...."awarding" an "award" to a criminal....

  52. text of Patriot Act by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    is enough proof for anyone...did you read it?

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  53. what "we" by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    we weren't in 2006.

    who is this "we" you mention...

    it's not Slashdot, b/c Slashdot has been talking about this stuff since the Patriot Act and before...

    you must be new here...privacy and government spying are one of the biggest topics on slashdot

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  54. Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    *don't it make my brown shirt bluuuue...*

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  55. Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To all you idiots out there, if you've got nothing to hid then you have nothing to fear.

    Except, of course, that everyone has something that they'd prefer remain hidden. Misuse of the knowledge of those things is the hallmark of totalitarian governments everywhere. I don't want a totalitarian government, thank you very much, and would prefer to keep their tools out of the hands of what appears to me to be an incipient totalitarian government.

    Edward Snowden is a big a danger to the US today as the Soviet Union was 4 years ago.

    The Soviet Union ceased to exist 22 years ago, so no problem there. Moron.

    He should be executed without trial.

    What was that i was saying about totalitarian governments? Are you an advocate of one, or simply un-American at your core? Having not yet been tried and proven guilty, the man is innocent. At least, he is MY USA.

  56. Death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hang the fucking traitor.

  57. Edward Snowden by Rick+Cameron · · Score: 1

    To quote an American Revolutionary War period hero, Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty, or give me death". And to paraphrase one of the greatest of the Founding Fathers of this so-called Democracy, Benjamin Franklin, 'those who would trade liberty for security, deserve neither liberty nor security'. For my money, I would impeach Obama for betraying the very spirit of the Constitution he swore to protect by moving us three steps closer to Orwell's 'Brave New World', and I would give Edward Snowden the Medal of Freedom for his selfless act of patriotism. Don't 'protect' me from terrorists at the expense of my fundamental liberties without my knowing and willing consent!

  58. How Many NSAs? by MisterToad · · Score: 1

    We seem to really be convinced that Ft. Mead is the only such place on the planet. We have to take into consideration that Russia, China, etc. have their own national security agencies. Now, their spy agencies are more effective than ours! Since ours has been damaged we should ask these other nations to show the world the inner workings of their spy agencies. Give the probable existence of these other spy agencies do we still feel Ed Snowden did a good thing?

    --
    Dick
  59. Re:Soon to be forgotten. Very soon. by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

    Here's what I'm thinking:

    The US keeps having mentally unstable people going into schools, malls, etc, and shooting up a bunch of people, before turning the gun on themselves. I realize there aren't really a lot of these, considering the population of the US, and the number of guns in circulation, but that's irrelevant to my point.

    If we accept that these kinds of shootings are going to happen regardless, as long as you keep your guns, which seems to be the prevailing opinion (again, not saying it's right or wrong; just that that's what US citizens say, for the most part) then why don't these unstable people do something to benefit society, and go shoot up a bar full of NSA management? It's not like their chances of dying are going to change. They're going to pull the trigger on themselves before the police have a chance to do it for them, so what difference does it make to them who they shoot? Heck, they could even shoot their way into a certain data center in Utah, and it's not like they'd be any more dead at the end of it.

    But if one of them did this, it would probably be looked on much better by the rest of the US population than going and shooting up a public school.....

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......