Slashdot Mirror


After Anti-Donation Executive Order, Bitcoin Donations For Snowden Jump

ZDNet reports that after a recent executive order from President Obama "said to have made it illegal to donate to Edward Snowden's fund," anonymous donations to the fund have soared -- at least ones as anonymous as Bitcoin makes possible. From the article: A new executive order signed into law this week by the president has one online community up in arms, after its loose wording effectively ruled out donating to Edward Snowden and others. In a post on Reddit's Bitcoin subreddit, members pledged to donate to the whistleblower's relief fund, despite the wording of the new executive order suggesting that doing so was illegal. In the new executive order, signed into law on Wednesday, US President Barack Obama declared cyber-threats aimed at the US a "national emergency." The order threatens sanctions against those (including US residents) who engage in cyberattacks and espionage activities that threaten US interests at home and abroad. The wording of the order specifically addresses any person whose "property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States." Redditors were quick to assume (likely correctly) that this includes Edward Snowden, who for more than a year-and-a-half has lived in Russia, evading US justice.

11 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Anonymous donations? by Iamthecheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck anonymous donations. As an act of civil disobedience I intend to donate directly from an account with my real name on it. They can come and get me.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Anonymous donations? by dcollins117 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't see any language that targets Mr. Snowden so I'm assuming it's perfectly fine to send him your donations. From TFS

      The order threatens sanctions against those (including US residents) who engage in cyberattacks and espionage activities that threaten US interests at home and abroad.

      Now that I think about it that sounds more like the NSA than Mr. Snowden.

  2. What the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a recent executive order from President Obama "said to have made it illegal to donate to Edward Snowden's fund,"

    What in the actual fuck? It is now illegal to donate to fund someone that has not been convinced of anything, and who has done great justice exposing criminal things our government has been up to? And yet it's totally fine to donate under the table to politicians (ie, bribe) for "favors"?

    When will it end? What the fuck happened to having a free society?

  3. Even worse. by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What in the actual fuck? It is now illegal to donate to fund someone that has not been convinced of anything, and who has done great justice exposing criminal things our government has been up to?

    It's much worse than that.

    The president, by himself, created and enacted a law which carries a criminal penalty.

    (My outrage meter is pretty much pegged, and I had a polemic about secret laws, secret courts, ordering US citizens killed, and such... but I think that one statement above stands by itself. The US is well and truly fucked.)

  4. Re:Snowden donations... by MobSwatter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, mod me ZERO, fine. But I don't see a big stink made out of the F35 plans making it into the hands of China. Instead I see a bigger stink made out of someone trying to support the supreme law of the land. The very one that made the U.S. what, well what it was and certainly not what it is now.

  5. Ed is welcome by AndyCanfield · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ed Snowden is my hero. He can sleep on my floor anytime.

    - Andy Canfield (Thailand)
    www.andycanfield.com

  6. Re:Executive orders are not law in and of themselv by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For this to be true, there must be some law passed by Congress making the donation illegal, presumably when the recipient is a member of some group as determined by the executive branch.

    How 1980's!

    There is only one branch of government, the Executive, then there are the minor agencies and departments like the Congressional Dept. and Legislative agency, all closely overseen by the Executive branches' all-seeing intelligence and monitoring apparatus.

    Any who buck the status quo are destroyed.

    But hey, there's rumored to be a new Marvel Comic-based movie in the works!

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  7. Free country? USA???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    a recent executive order from President Obama "said to have made it illegal to donate to Edward Snowden's fund,"

    What in the actual fuck? It is now illegal to donate to fund someone that has not been convinced of anything, and who has done great justice exposing criminal things our government has been up to? And yet it's totally fine to donate under the table to politicians (ie, bribe) for "favors"?

    When will it end? What the fuck happened to having a free society?

    Just in case you have been hiding inside a cave for a long time, the US of A hasn't passed the 'free country' test, for the past 2 decades or so

    All the so-called 'freedoms' are but a poor illusion, a charade, a scam

    The problem is that most of the USians (I am not going to use the noun "Americans" here because using it would degrade the dignity of other citizens of the American Continent such as the Canadians, the Mexicans, the Brazilians, and so on ...) still think that they live in a free country !

    Land of the Free? Home of the Brave? Pffffffttttttttt !!!!

  8. How do I know if I'm breaking the law? by Cacadril · · Score: 4, Insightful
    To find out if this order applies to what you intend to do, you probably need to study the conditions specified in the order. Donations...

    "...to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order..."

    are being prohibited. Now, how do I know whether Snowden is such a person whose property is blocked pursuant to said order? Is there a registry over such persons?

    --
    There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
  9. Re:Executive orders are not law in and of themselv by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US has been in a perpetual state of emergency since 9/11. Every time things look like they are settling down, some new crisis is presented to prolong the panic a bit longer.

  10. Re:Obama wants to become Judge Dredd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every president has done such things.

    If the US wants to change the current course it needs to make some changes at the "executive" level.

    1) No more "executive orders", laws should be passed via congress not a presidents whim.
    2) No more "secret orders" (FBI participating in political warfare in secret).
    3) Make it easer to get rid of a president. In many ways a US president is more like a king then an elected (sort of) official. Most "democratic nations" have several tools to remove their leader and trigger an election to vote for a new one. The US only has impeachment, and even when they break the laws they are just pardoned by the next president anyhow.

    Last comment, the US laws around armed citizens was suppose to be about the citizens being able to protect themselves from their government.
    There are literally millions of guns in citizens hands, when will they stand up against the gvt?