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.

10 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.)

    1. Re:Even worse. by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actual Executive Order

      Nothing there says criminal penalties.

      Also, it says that the actors must be outside of the United States. Remind me again, but Snowden did all of his stuff inside of the United States, right?

      As usual, non-lawyers read something think it means something that makes them upset, and it spreads and no one actually sits down to read the actual law.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  4. 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.
  5. FTEO by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. Edward Snowden for Senate ! by randalware · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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