Who's supposed to lobby for the people?...oh, right, the representatives whom were elected by the people should be the lobbyists for the people...I'm feeling a bit naive today.
John Walker and Robert Hanssen, sold military secrets and the identities of agents working for the U.S. to the Soviet Union. Manning and Snowden didn't sell anything to anyone. They didn't expose the identities of agents who were working for the U.S. They didn't sell information about sensitive military technology such as submarine detection sensors.
Real spies don't go public with their information or their identities.
Russia doesn't have any problem with the death penalty in any cases.
If Snowden were possibly facing the death penalty in the U.S., he would qualify for asylum under the UN Convention on Asylum seekers in any country that abides by international conventions and obligations, regardless of the offense he is charged with. The U.S. government is obviously aware of this, and wouldn't be stupid enough to seek to execute Manning.
Unfortunately, I suspect the only reason he's spoken up about it is that he doesn't have anything left to lose. He's no longer in the public eye.....
The biggest fear of any congressman or senator is losing the next election. Whenever funding for the NSA, Defense, CIA, DOHS, etc. comes up they all vote for it. To vote against it is to risk being portrayed as "soft" or "weak" against terrorists. If there is a terror attack, then in the next election, you would run the risk of being accused of being "responsible" for the attack of of being a closet "terrorist". That's probably what Ex-President Carter meant by saying that democracy is no longer functioning in the U.S.
According to a recent opinion article in Der Spiegel, 150 Americans have died in terrorist attacks since 9-11, almost all of them while outside of the U.S. To put this in perspective that's half as many Americans as have been killed by having a TV-set fall on their heads. But there's no Department of Homeland Television-Set Wall-Mount Security, but maybe there should be.
The NSDAP did not win a majority in 1933. They had 43.9% of the popular vote. The other parties were too fragmented to build a grand coalition to keep Hitler out of power. As for popular support, Hitler played a Hi-Low game. He sought support from wealthy industrialists who were terrified of the communists and saw the NSDAP as the best insurance policy against Bolshevism. Other party leaders, such as Ernst Röhm, played the to the working masses, promising much the same things that the Communists were promising.
$5,000 are you kidding me? The Russians paid Aldrich Ames at least $600,000 in cash, and on top of that, the Russian intelligence service has a reputation for being stingy in paying sources. It sounds as if this kid from Iceland either has below-average bargaining skills, or he has an ideological reason for spying.
Ever see the movie "The Birdman of Alcatraz"? Getting a PhD is a lot like being the birdman, only without the jail cell or the guards. Like that prisoner, you do some basic research / experimentation while reading up on a topic, you publish, continue reading, eventually maybe find a good topic for a theses, do more research, more experimentation, and publish again. After a positive review, you might have a PhD. It's an individual effort. A PhD in and of itself is a stamp of approval that this person can perform quality scientific work independently.
Being an Astronaut OTOH, is about being a team player, not unlike being part of the crew of a ship or an aircraft. The military excels at training people to operate complex machinery. A lot of military officers, especially pilots, also have PhDs in engineering and science. So when the selection committee is reviewing applications, they are probably looking for a good balance, not a birdman, but also not just some fighter jock.
Pragmatic response would be, the best information about threats would come from people in "that group." If you want access to useful information on which to build good intelligence, you would need to have good relationships with "that group." Or you could be like Israel, and put "them" behind a fence, and watch your reliable information sources dry up and your cost of collecting information rise exponentially. The Maginot Line defense seldom works in the real world.
We had ample warning prior to 9-11. The FBI was even keeping track of Mohammad Atah while he was taking flying lessons in Florida. It was the higher-ups in D.C. who didn't take the threat seriously and refused to act on this information.
Another example, the shoe bomber, who was thwarted at the last minute by passengers. His father had grown suspicious about his son, and warned the U.S. embassy in his country. Another real lead that was not followed up on.
After every successful terrorist attack, there is always some soul searching about how this attack could have been prevented. I don't see how spying on Americans by default would have changed things on 9-11. In the end, people have to make decisions based on the incomplete information that is available and chose which leads could be true threats and which ones are probably not. That's where the break down in U.S. security is; effectively interpreting the information available. Not that there is not enough information in the first place.
If the U.S. really wants to be safe from Muslim extremists, the U.S. should focus on building better relations with the Muslim community. The first step would be to stop betraying those values we preach to others. The second step would be to improve access for young people int he middle east to educational opportunities in the U.S. through an expanded visa and scholarship program. The third step would be to improve primary and secondary education in the middle east. I know schools aren't as sexy as an armed Global Hawk drone. But the best information comes from people on the ground who are in contact with potential terrorists. If the U.S. were seen in a more positive light, we would get better information as a result. Lastly, intervening in Syria and taking sides in yet another middle-eastern civil war, is just plain stupid.
....I'd compare it more closely to the former East German (DDR) Stasi
Technically, if you believe the NSA has no direct access, the ISPs and Telcos actually collected the information and sent the NSA copies....
The STASI did not have enough agents to spy on the East German population. That is why they relied on "Unofficial Colleges (IM)" or informants to do most of the eavesdropping for them. What the NSA and the ISPs/Telcos do in tandem is not very different than the old STASI / IM system. The only difference is the STASI had to rely on the technology of the day; typewriters, microphones, and tape recorders. The NSA system is digital and automated.
With enough AI, the NSA could easily achieve a kind of automated super-spy system that records each and every criminal action by anyone who posts online information, uses the telephone, etc. Remove that mattress label, mention it on the phone, or post it on/. and get a letter from law enforcement asking to pay a fine. Or they could wait until you get caught for something big and tack on every little "crime" you have ever inadvertently committed, such as eating an illegal lobster, and yes there is a federal law against that.
...Luckily, since external thunderbolt enclosures are alarmingly expensive and totally out of step with the new look, any attempt at expansion shouldn't be a dreadful mess!
That's why next year Apple will announce the iSixPack RAID array.
A lot of comments are about the morality of releasing the documents (constitution vs. obeying orders) seem to be missing the larger point. In Snowden's own words from his interview with the Guardian, the American people need to decide if this federal data collection problem is right or wrong. From all appearances, both major parties (Democrat and Republican) are firmly in the grip of the industrial-security complex. How can we change this? How can we make the government respect the will of the majority of its citizens with regards to individual privacy rights and due process? President Obama said that "he welcomes the debate". Would he have welcomed the debate last week? How can we have an honest public debate when anyone who provides documents is immediately threatened with life in the slammer?
As long as both parties tow the same common line on security issues, I hope that there will be more and more Snowdens and Mannings, because for a lot of these people, there is no other recourse than to go the press and hope that public opinion comes down on their side. If these programs really do save lives, the government needs to finally come clean and stop just saying "just trust us." I wish Snowden good luck and hope that he finds asylum somewhere safe, and I hope that if someday sanity returns to the federal government, he can come home without being threatened.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's supposed to lobby for the people?...oh, right, the representatives whom were elected by the people should be the lobbyists for the people...I'm feeling a bit naive today.
if they take a call while charging with a malicious charger.
John Walker and Robert Hanssen, sold military secrets and the identities of agents working for the U.S. to the Soviet Union. Manning and Snowden didn't sell anything to anyone. They didn't expose the identities of agents who were working for the U.S. They didn't sell information about sensitive military technology such as submarine detection sensors.
Real spies don't go public with their information or their identities.
Russia doesn't have any problem with the death penalty in any cases.
If Snowden were possibly facing the death penalty in the U.S., he would qualify for asylum under the UN Convention on Asylum seekers in any country that abides by international conventions and obligations, regardless of the offense he is charged with. The U.S. government is obviously aware of this, and wouldn't be stupid enough to seek to execute Manning.
I thought that in Colorado, you can use a drone to hunt any vehicle with a CA or TX license plate.
Unfortunately, I suspect the only reason he's spoken up about it is that he doesn't have anything left to lose. He's no longer in the public eye.....
The biggest fear of any congressman or senator is losing the next election. Whenever funding for the NSA, Defense, CIA, DOHS, etc. comes up they all vote for it. To vote against it is to risk being portrayed as "soft" or "weak" against terrorists. If there is a terror attack, then in the next election, you would run the risk of being accused of being "responsible" for the attack of of being a closet "terrorist". That's probably what Ex-President Carter meant by saying that democracy is no longer functioning in the U.S.
According to a recent opinion article in Der Spiegel, 150 Americans have died in terrorist attacks since 9-11, almost all of them while outside of the U.S. To put this in perspective that's half as many Americans as have been killed by having a TV-set fall on their heads. But there's no Department of Homeland Television-Set Wall-Mount Security, but maybe there should be.
The NSDAP did not win a majority in 1933. They had 43.9% of the popular vote. The other parties were too fragmented to build a grand coalition to keep Hitler out of power. As for popular support, Hitler played a Hi-Low game. He sought support from wealthy industrialists who were terrified of the communists and saw the NSDAP as the best insurance policy against Bolshevism. Other party leaders, such as Ernst Röhm, played the to the working masses, promising much the same things that the Communists were promising.
Why? Is it made of paper?
Paper covers rock.
No, they should rename it to the Boeing 451 Screamliner.
Ba-Da-Bing.
... they should bring back the Amazon Women on the Moon.
No, women are from Venus.
I wish I had some mod points...
I prefer the Muppets version. It almost makes one want to sack France.
$5,000 are you kidding me? The Russians paid Aldrich Ames at least $600,000 in cash, and on top of that, the Russian intelligence service has a reputation for being stingy in paying sources. It sounds as if this kid from Iceland either has below-average bargaining skills, or he has an ideological reason for spying.
But where would you find a big enough rocket???
Ever see the movie "The Birdman of Alcatraz"? Getting a PhD is a lot like being the birdman, only without the jail cell or the guards. Like that prisoner, you do some basic research / experimentation while reading up on a topic, you publish, continue reading, eventually maybe find a good topic for a theses, do more research, more experimentation, and publish again. After a positive review, you might have a PhD. It's an individual effort. A PhD in and of itself is a stamp of approval that this person can perform quality scientific work independently.
Being an Astronaut OTOH, is about being a team player, not unlike being part of the crew of a ship or an aircraft. The military excels at training people to operate complex machinery. A lot of military officers, especially pilots, also have PhDs in engineering and science. So when the selection committee is reviewing applications, they are probably looking for a good balance, not a birdman, but also not just some fighter jock.
Pragmatic response would be, the best information about threats would come from people in "that group." If you want access to useful information on which to build good intelligence, you would need to have good relationships with "that group." Or you could be like Israel, and put "them" behind a fence, and watch your reliable information sources dry up and your cost of collecting information rise exponentially. The Maginot Line defense seldom works in the real world.
We had ample warning prior to 9-11. The FBI was even keeping track of Mohammad Atah while he was taking flying lessons in Florida. It was the higher-ups in D.C. who didn't take the threat seriously and refused to act on this information.
Another example, the shoe bomber, who was thwarted at the last minute by passengers. His father had grown suspicious about his son, and warned the U.S. embassy in his country. Another real lead that was not followed up on.
After every successful terrorist attack, there is always some soul searching about how this attack could have been prevented. I don't see how spying on Americans by default would have changed things on 9-11. In the end, people have to make decisions based on the incomplete information that is available and chose which leads could be true threats and which ones are probably not. That's where the break down in U.S. security is; effectively interpreting the information available. Not that there is not enough information in the first place.
If the U.S. really wants to be safe from Muslim extremists, the U.S. should focus on building better relations with the Muslim community. The first step would be to stop betraying those values we preach to others. The second step would be to improve access for young people int he middle east to educational opportunities in the U.S. through an expanded visa and scholarship program. The third step would be to improve primary and secondary education in the middle east. I know schools aren't as sexy as an armed Global Hawk drone. But the best information comes from people on the ground who are in contact with potential terrorists. If the U.S. were seen in a more positive light, we would get better information as a result. Lastly, intervening in Syria and taking sides in yet another middle-eastern civil war, is just plain stupid.
...I wouldn't mind being truly equal and working to better ourselves instead of money.
Then join a cult such as Scientology. But then again, there is no equality in cults, so you're probably better off not joining.
....I'd compare it more closely to the former East German (DDR) Stasi
Technically, if you believe the NSA has no direct access, the ISPs and Telcos actually collected the information and sent the NSA copies....
The STASI did not have enough agents to spy on the East German population. That is why they relied on "Unofficial Colleges (IM)" or informants to do most of the eavesdropping for them. What the NSA and the ISPs/Telcos do in tandem is not very different than the old STASI / IM system. The only difference is the STASI had to rely on the technology of the day; typewriters, microphones, and tape recorders. The NSA system is digital and automated.
With enough AI, the NSA could easily achieve a kind of automated super-spy system that records each and every criminal action by anyone who posts online information, uses the telephone, etc. Remove that mattress label, mention it on the phone, or post it on /. and get a letter from law enforcement asking to pay a fine. Or they could wait until you get caught for something big and tack on every little "crime" you have ever inadvertently committed, such as eating an illegal lobster, and yes there is a federal law against that.
...I'd advise you get on the phone and sell it NOW...
You trade on the phone?!...I wish I would have unloaded Zeppelin while I still could.
And Cook's successor will give us the Mac Pro SpHERE.
...Luckily, since external thunderbolt enclosures are alarmingly expensive and totally out of step with the new look, any attempt at expansion shouldn't be a dreadful mess!
That's why next year Apple will announce the iSixPack RAID array.
The Cray-1 was a cylinder.
A lot of comments are about the morality of releasing the documents (constitution vs. obeying orders) seem to be missing the larger point. In Snowden's own words from his interview with the Guardian, the American people need to decide if this federal data collection problem is right or wrong. From all appearances, both major parties (Democrat and Republican) are firmly in the grip of the industrial-security complex. How can we change this? How can we make the government respect the will of the majority of its citizens with regards to individual privacy rights and due process? President Obama said that "he welcomes the debate". Would he have welcomed the debate last week? How can we have an honest public debate when anyone who provides documents is immediately threatened with life in the slammer?
As long as both parties tow the same common line on security issues, I hope that there will be more and more Snowdens and Mannings, because for a lot of these people, there is no other recourse than to go the press and hope that public opinion comes down on their side. If these programs really do save lives, the government needs to finally come clean and stop just saying "just trust us." I wish Snowden good luck and hope that he finds asylum somewhere safe, and I hope that if someday sanity returns to the federal government, he can come home without being threatened.