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.
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.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoi...
Sent from my ENIAC
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?
What, no link to the source material or the executive order wording?
So... Release information that will incriminate Uncle Sam in support of U.S. foundational principle and law of the land is taboo. They'll still attack out of spite and to starve you. Still they say freedom in the U.S. is a big seller and better than any place else in the world. Gotta call BULLSHIT on that one. I'm thinking the powers that be are bent on Hitler's ways, and in a both feet sort of way. Germany has all that shit behind them, I'm thinking that one of the two is perceptive enough to learn, and certainly not capable of learning from another's mistakes. So, Obummer, when do we all get bar codes, oh wait I forgot about the Obummercare thing, and the FEMA camps are looking a bit baron without barbeques. So tell us, which race will it be this time?
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. Anyone have the details?
The courts would never fall for this, but if there isn't a very good justification for the law, Citizen's United ought to apply...
Seems like when he said "Fundamentally change America" he meant into a crony capitalist police state.
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.)
No link? [citation needed]
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
This is no "national emergency". Fuck you, Obama.
--Card-carrying, 3rd generation, life-long liberal Democrat.
Ed Snowden is my hero. He can sleep on my floor anytime.
- Andy Canfield (Thailand)
www.andycanfield.com
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.
I am also thinking of doing just that
What's the account number that I can donate to help out Mr. Snowden?
To /. pranksters: This is serious, so please, spare your pranks for the next victim
Thank you !
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 !!!!
because you can't plead the 1st.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
To be fair the summary had ZERO links. One is better than none.
getting a plug because this was news on reddit like 3 days ago. I think my favorite part of slashdot now is seeing stories on the front page here days after they appear on reddit... not sure why i'm still here
Fuck the executive order. This president has pushed the boundaries with his executive orders. He usurps the authority of congress with many of them, including his immigration/amnesty orders.
The President of the United States has ZERO authority to tell people how they can spend their money.
This is the same mouthy prick who told stay at home moms that he had no use for them. He doesn't WANT mothers caring for their children, or for their aging parents/grandparents. He wants them in the work force, so that they are paying SOMEONE ELSE to care for those children.
I kinda voted for Obama, in that I voted against Romney. But, Obama is as big a prick as any president has been. Liberal love him, but that doesn't make him a good president.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I'll bet it's on zdnet.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/s...
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Once again proving the adage that there is no such thing as bad press. Memories Pizza being a recent example too. There is even a fancy name for it, Succès de scandale -- the Wiki article has additional examples.
Of course this adage is really a case of selective memory. There is plenty of examples of bad press harming the subject. Plenty of businesses, and people are harmed by bad press. When I was young, the Tylenol scare occurred because some sicko poisoned some bottles of Tylenol. Had Johnson and Johnson done anything wrong, not at all. But they had to spend a ton of cash recovering from the bad press, including changing their bottling to include anti-tampering, having product pulled from the shelf, etc.
So what is the difference in stories like these? If enough people see the bad press as over the top or simply unfair, the bad press magically transforms in just press and the net outcome is positive for the P/R victim.
The Executive Order cites the laws that are claimed to authorize the order in the first paragraph, to wit "including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code".
He can cite them all he wants. They don't apply. There is no emergency. Fuck Obama.
-- Will program for bandwidth
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.
That's an interesting read. While nothing in the order says criminal penalties it mentions the laws which apparently let one person rule by diktat so I expect that they specify the penalties.
The part I thought interesting though was that any of these funds which come under the control of an "American person" are included. I'm guessing that this means Americans with jobs in the financial sector abroad are going to have a hard time: if they follow this law then they may find themselves breaking local laws, or at least out of a job, and yet if they don't they will be breaking US law.
I wish them luck trying to figure out how to deal with the slightly insane decrees coming from their leader. Now I think of it didn't the US have a revolution to get rid of a king who was issuing somewhat insane decrees? A bit of nostalgia for the "good" old days is one thing but I think you might be taking this a bit too far. Mind you it was issued on 1st April...
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.
essential link and reddit in the same sentence? really??
contributing to a crook running for political office is legal !
if an executive order against that happens, we will get the political reform we need !
This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
The perpetual state of emergency extends back even further, to Jimmy Carter in 1979. At this point, it's just a tool for the executive branch to hang on to the additional powers granted by the 1976 bill.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
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?
"A new executive order signed into law" What? Does the article author not have a clue that this isn't how executive orders work?
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
If I didn't think you were serious I would suggest you are trying to be funny and disgusting at the same time.
Many republicans rejected Romney care at the time and many told of it's failures before Obama was even elected. Republicans also promoted a law similar in the 90s and got shot down by their own then too.
If you really think it is about a nigger in the white house, you are delusional and ignorant.Its about ideological differences and strong arm shenanigans that started off in this administration like how they played games to pass Obama care in the first place or harry Reid's purposeful blocking of republican amendments and inputs in senate bills.
Now i understand why you would want to make this about race because it doesn't require any thinking and can be used to rally support from people who seem to be dropping it. But it doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.
"evading US justice"? I don't think so.
Amazing how when presidents WANT to do something, they whip out the Executive Order pen. Yet when it comes to fulfilling any promise they made to get voted in, it's "muh hands are tied, it's the fault of the House, or the Senate, or... due process, whatever."
you sound right, but you are really wrong.
it IS about race, for republicans. down deep, they are the modern minority-haters and have been for decades, now. not forever, (things were reversed previous to that) but now, they are the poster boys of 'if you are not white, straight and christian, we're against you'.
no ideology anyone could have would create this much anger in a group of people - it HAS to be race. america never got right about how to deal with race issues and this pretty much proves it.
I find it cute that others deny this. its the (white) elephant in the room that the other side refuses to admit. and of course they won't admit it, to admit such a thing today is pretty much already on the wrong side of history.
the anti-gay trend in the red states is more proof of 'if you aint a christian you're not one of us and we will shun you' belief. again, pure republican minority hatred.
now, I totally dislike obama these days, but its because of how he turned his back on the liberal ideas and has become a push-over for the power brokers who control him and own him. he never did much good for the liberal cause (partly because he was blocked by the R's, but also because he really didn't TRY all that much. not sure if he was lying to us or just ignorant of how little control he'd have as president).
the R's always hated him, and the D's now hate him for betraying them and their principles. he's not going to be remembered well by history. too bad, there was a lot of potential there, but it was all misused.
perhaps this really is proof: no matter who you put in that office, the office will ruin them.
I do think its time to redo our whole system. if your code base is so old, so tangled, so full of exception code and has more exceptions than rules, its time to scrap it and start over. and yes, I'm arguing for a complete re-do of our laws, our government and it needs to come sooner rather than later if we are to salvage what is left of our once great country.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The short summary of your post is "Republicans must be racists, because I don't understand them."
And apparently Democrats can dislike Obama all they want, and that doesn't make them racists. Great double standard there.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
...specifically:
1. Money is Speech (ever heard of the "Citizen's United" decision?)
2. Sending money to (putative) criminals under this Executive Order is illegal.
3. Logical conclusion: The Executive Order section asserting this prohibition is unlawful.
That's not to say our corrupt government, hell-bent on benefiting the 1% and limiting freedoms for or benefits to the 99%, hasn't asserted that intentionally in order to start the long road to gutting the First Amendment.
#1 is broken in that Congress no longer passes laws.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Presidents are, by law, allowed to issue Executive Orders.
If you don't like that, campaign to change it.
Such a campaign is bound to be fruitful... I'm sure whichever president is in at office at the time is bound to sign it!
Also, if he or she doesn't, then I'm sure the senate, which is full of future-president-wanna-be's would come up with the necessary 2/3rd's majority to override a presidential veto!
Um, ya.. Way to Go Snowden.. ya I think these Exec. orders just inflate the situation. Whats the real reasoning behind the order ???? Since the Snowden campaign is not even on US soil (as I understand it, although in this day and age that may have changed recently). Help us to understand how an executive order can reach or be enforced outside the borders? If snowden is so off base, etc. then why has it been so difficult to squash his perceived rhetoric? Why is HBO Publishing a nice documentary about his adventures? I am confused, is this fact the world tells me or is it fiction what my government tells me?
Outside of someone saying any opposition to Obama is because he is black, there simply is no evidence of your claim. Maybe you can stretch having the federal government grant special privileges to minorities and the ideological opposition to it as a racial bias but it would have to completely ignore reality.
There is absolutely no anti gay trend in any state. There might end up being one if people are accused of it enough and get fed up with having extra rights pushed on them that override their own rights. Keeping the status quo is not anti gay, it is simply not changing to give anything extra. And when you sit there and say that freedom to exercise religion only applies as long as you do not try to make a living or conflict with any of these new found rights of a minority population, it isn't anti gay, it is anti Christianity.
He was definitely lying to you. All politicians do so to get what they want and then ignore those commitments as soon as it becomes inconvenient to something else they want.This has nothing to do with being democrat or republican or liberal, it has to do with how much of a chump they believe you really are. Evidently, it is more so of one than you envisioned and are disillusioned now.
I completely disagree. What needs to happen is that the federal government needs to stop nanny policing everything and go back to a limited constitutional directive they originally had and your state can do the things most people expect the federal government to do. This benifits you more because you have more control over local politicians and do not have to worry about idiots 4 states away overriding your concerns or wishes when implimented by your government. The problem now is that people seem to think everyone from different backgrounds all support the same trash you support because everyone you surround yourself with does but the reality is that not everyone does and 3/4s of the states can effectively block what you want to force on them. If you stuck to your state policies, you would have your momentum and paradise or whatever without having to be subjected to the will of the millions of other people in different states that do not agree with you.
No, by all means, redoing the government is not needed, restricting the federal government is what is needed. It allows the most people to have the most freedoms most of the times.
He obviously doesn't feel that way because he's hanging out here. The people that really hate it aren't here. Some people just live to bitch about anything and everything.
better comment system
actually readable web design.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
IIRC the US has officially been in a state of emergency ever since WWII. It was declared during the war and was never recinded. (I think it's also been redeclared a few times since then, but, again IIRC, the WWII declaration came with the approval of Congress, the others have just been presidential declarations, and didn't actually change the legal standing...though they did announce how the government intended to act.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
There actually *is* US justice. There's even more of it than there is injustice. It's just that the injustice is a lot more damaging than the justice is constructive.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The answer is pretty simple: we need to throw out the Constitution, and switch to a Parliamentary style government like every other democratic republic in the world (except a few crappy places like El Salvador and Honduras). I read a great, though lengthy, analysis of this not long ago, but can't find the link now, but the main problem with presidential republics like ours is that the President has too much power, can't be replaced easily, and worst of all is frequently at odds with the rest of the government due to the way elections work. When the Executive and Legislative Branches are in conflict, then the business of running the government screeches to a halt, and can stay that way for months or more. When Clinton and Congress got into it over the Lewinski affair, the federal government basically stopped operating for over a year. This never happens in a Parliamentary system: there, the Prime Minister is selected by the ruling party in Parliament. If there's a big problem, Parliament can be dissolved and new elections held, and the government can get back on track very quickly.
Then forget any sensitive work. Tracing it to you will only make it easier to deny a security clearance.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The evidence against him and his co-conspirators is large enough that some mistake it for a kangaroo court.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Well, not very much.
But now they'll be coming for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F......
Here's an idea: all bills/laws - federal or state - should have to be approved unanimously by a panel comprising of teenaged (under 18) boys and/or girls of the group (sex/race/religion or whatever the case may be) which the proposed bill/law will most likely affect.
And if they can't reach a unanimous decision by simply reading the law, the politicians sponsoring the bill/law should have to make their case to the panel.
Also, the panel should be chosen by lottery with mandatory participation (travel/accommodation expenses would be reimbursed by the sponsors of the proposed bill/law, of course, with the participants remaining anonymous until the panel gets to their seats).
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com)
Yeah...because citizens having guns worked so well in Libya and Syria. Why don't American pay attention to reality? Guns would just result in fascist theocracy in the American South.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Agreed. The US would be a much better, saner country under a parliamentary model, with representatives elected via proportional representation. The US Constitution is proving to be a disaster..... though of course most Americans wouldn't understand why even if you explained it to them. They know next to nothing about alternative political models.... Or why NO ONE copies the US model.... At least, not in the last 50 years.
Only boring people are ever bored.
50 years? The US, after it won WWII, took control of both Germany and Japan and reworked the governments there. Did it make them adopt presidential systems like ours? Nope, they both got parliamentary systems. Hmm.....
I wonder what would happen if one of the candidates in the next Presidential election pledged to pardon Snowden?
Is there enough of a majority for them to win on this issue?
End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain