I'm pretty sure this type of "USA is the greatest" response only establishes the point of the AC you replied to. Nationalism is a funny thing, it's actually helpful up to a point, as it creates a sense of belonging together. After that point, though, it varies from laughable to dangerous. The amount of flag waving and anthem singing going on in the USA would be considered well into dangerous territory by many.
BTW The difference between "mass surveillance" and "spying on diplomats" (foreign diplomats as guest in ones own country, that is) is exactly what this is about, so I'm not sure why you're accusing GP of trying to sneak a switch past us.
Should they have been slightly less self-righteous when "blasting the US" last time? Sure. Does this even remotely compare to the practices of NSA regarding foreign (allied) heads of state? Nu-uh.
The main difference is that this is happening on Brazilian soil.
You're wanting to invoke some archaic notions of peasants and aristocrats, I see what you did there, but really it's even worse. Actually, the proposition is to make the consumer a product. Which is not exactly a new concept (TV ads, GOOG, FB et al) but somehow doesn't really seem to bother a lot of people.
Of course it does. You can't expect to have any credibility if significant numbers of the electorate don't show up. I see how you could argue that voting for a 3rd party would be a more powerful signal though.
I foresee a wave of creative "vandalism". Products that move to conveniently block the camera, smudged lenses, etc.
And understandably so if you ask me. Similar stories have been popping up lately. Does none of these companies get that this probably isn't the best of times to introduce these privacy sensitive "improvements"?
I wasn't trying to diss WL as much as I was trying to question globaljustin's assertion that by choosing not to use WL as middle man to the press, Edward Snowden somehow proved himself to be a dishonest whistleblower (by which I took him to mean, have an agenda other than informing the public of these government programs -- I don't think many people are denying the truth of the actual contents of the leaks).
And that the reason why he might have chosen so, but that is beside the point, might be that they surely haven't been able to prevent Manning's terrible fate. Which is a large part of what they should be good at, in my book. All the more so if, as seems to be the case, the events leading up to Manning's capture happened after her contacts with WL. Of course it's possible that they tried to give him sound advice but it was ignored.
To falsify my point, if Snowden really was what he wants us to think he was (an honest, aw shucks I just want to help whistleblower) then he would have used his precious Wikileaks to get the information out.
Wait... So only if you use Wikileaks as channel you get to be an honest whistleblower, in your opinion?
Obviously there are many other ways. And the Wikileaks way didn't end very well for Chelsea Manning. Finally, I agree that GWB deserves more shit than he's being served of late, but that doesn't magically absolve BHO from maintaining and in may cases drastically extending these programs.
He is wisely using the drip, drip, drip method of disclosure so the press and public have time to digest each successive piece of information
Not only that, but he gave the people in power time to LIE about it, and then get caught.
If he gave it out all at once, they could go over it, come up with their response and their lies and nobody would be able to refute them. However, forcing them to make their admissions and coverup lies one at a time put them at a huge disadvantage.
It was masterful.
Absolutely. Furthermore, I don't think it was a coincidence that the stories about warrantless spying on US citizens appeared well before the current stories about spying on supposed allies. Perhaps, if the American public had not (on average) reacted to the first batch with such contemptible apathy, the latter batch would have remained unreleased. No way to be sure, of course. But the order in which this happened can't have been an accident.
If you don't vote, you can't be differentiated from someone too lazy or too uninformed to vote.
Well that works both ways, though doesn't it? If you do vote, there is no way of telling if you really support that candidate or just narrowly came down on the lesser evil, from your point of view. So the winner will just go ahead and claim all votes for him/her are true believers, and feel empowered by a mandate that is way out of proportion.
I am not sure either way, but a radical drop in voter turn out is a signal that hasn't been tried yet, afaik.
I doubt voting will solve the problem, they will just lie and say they won , probably like they have done for a century anyway. Damn, all they do is lie and cheat people out of their rights to make things more convenient to their ambitions. Why choose between two liars? Vote for someone, just not a Repub or a Dem. Its easy!! Even a nut would be preferential to a lying thieving confidence man.
I appreciate the sentiment, but am starting to think that maybe it is time to stop voting as long as there are only lesser evils to choose from. We're encouraging them. I think Russel Brand is a bit of a douche, but this editorial strikes me as rather spot on.
It can't have been a coincidence that Snowden and partners in the press are releasing this in such a specific order. Only after the US populace at large proved (predictably, in my opinion) completely apathetic to the news of their governments unconstitutional spying on US citizens did they proceed to release data about the NSA snooping on international level.
Meanwhile there's no evidence that these leaks actually endangered any operatives, or concrete indications that terrorist cells have already adapted (hint, they weren't using digital comms much even before these "revelations"). So the editors seem to have done their job, it seems to me.
To say that some private citizen would be "the most lucky person in the world for taking [Snowden] out" is a fairly disgusting statement.
You seem to be confusing Germany with, I don't know, Iceland or something. The winters are not "brutal" and the country is definitely not "tiny".
Other than that, I agree that industrial espionage and the regular kind probably go hand in hand. Remember how Echelon intel somehow wound up at Boeing and allowed them to screw over the French Airbus? I'm sure it works both ways.
Mostly agree with your post, except I think this is not meant to "inflame anti-American sentiment" but rather it's timed to ride on that sentiment which is already quite inflamed enough, thank you very much, because of the US agencies' own doing.
To translate: Dutch politicians attempt to ruin their own software industry, do nothing to stop digital surveillance.
Well the proposal would be for a EU wide export ban, but I see your point and tend to agree it wouldn't solve much.
Still, it makes sense to try and change some things that are within ones own reach, at least for starters. And in the Netherlands, there is quite a bit of development of this type of surveillance software going on.
I worked for one of these companies for about a month until I figured out exactly how badly it disgusted me. The Netherlands is among the worst countries when it comes to phone taps, which is what this company specialized in, but they happily exported to places like China and worse.
So, is this enough? No. Is it a start in the right direction? Maybe.
As I read your post it is at "-1, Insightful". Next we'll see a "+5, Troll" or something.
Slashdot is getting more confused by the minute. You clearly have no idea what either word "communist" or "progressive liberal" means if you think they are the same or that a typical Obama supporter is either.
The NSA didn't put them there, it was the GCHQ. The NSA then analyzed the data for them.
You are correct, it seems, but I don't think it really matters. We've seen, over the course of this whole Snowden saga, that these agencies are basically just proxies for one another so both can say they're not spying on their own. Just facilitating the other to do so and then share the data.
Of course it is more complicated, but GP was being a bit of a douche and I had little time to reply. The Vikings are doing pretty well, actually. Scandinavian nations rank high in most indices.
Clearly there are counter examples, but I don't think you can deny that having the huge material advantage from the bad old days is a major factor in how current wealth distribution came about.
This would not have been possible without hard work, to be sure, but I think would have been likewise impossible without this head start.
Native Americans tribes, or at least that's my impression, were not above pillaging and looting each other. But with different ideas of wealth and property from the European settlers (and each other probably). More to the point though, by that time it didn't really matter what they had aspired to beforehand.
Seriously, who cares about these poor, underdeveloped countries and why should we be helping them in any way? They are poor because of their own incompetence, corruption, and lawlessness.
Ah, you think that has nothing to do with being exploited and robbed bare for centuries? Somehow the countries with some of the most natural resources (esp gold, silver, diamond, but also copper, uranium, etc) are among the world's poorest. Go figure.
Conversely, this history of looting and pillaging is a large factor in why the currently wealthy countries became, well, wealthy.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure this type of "USA is the greatest" response only establishes the point of the AC you replied to. Nationalism is a funny thing, it's actually helpful up to a point, as it creates a sense of belonging together. After that point, though, it varies from laughable to dangerous. The amount of flag waving and anthem singing going on in the USA would be considered well into dangerous territory by many.
BTW The difference between "mass surveillance" and "spying on diplomats" (foreign diplomats as guest in ones own country, that is) is exactly what this is about, so I'm not sure why you're accusing GP of trying to sneak a switch past us.
Read the article.
Should they have been slightly less self-righteous when "blasting the US" last time? Sure.
Does this even remotely compare to the practices of NSA regarding foreign (allied) heads of state? Nu-uh.
The main difference is that this is happening on Brazilian soil.
I wonder how many of their 911 emergency calls go unanswered?
Since they won't answer that FOIA request I guess we'll never know.
Well, if you put in three FOIA requests then maybe one of them might be answered, if I read this right.
A debate is by definition a battle of wits between two (or more) people where one presents a theory...
No it isn't!
Disagreements are two offices down the hall.
You're wanting to invoke some archaic notions of peasants and aristocrats, I see what you did there, but really it's even worse. Actually, the proposition is to make the consumer a product. Which is not exactly a new concept (TV ads, GOOG, FB et al) but somehow doesn't really seem to bother a lot of people.
and you should know better.
Whoa, where did that come from?
Of course it does. You can't expect to have any credibility if significant numbers of the electorate don't show up. I see how you could argue that voting for a 3rd party would be a more powerful signal though.
I foresee a wave of creative "vandalism". Products that move to conveniently block the camera, smudged lenses, etc.
And understandably so if you ask me. Similar stories have been popping up lately. Does none of these companies get that this probably isn't the best of times to introduce these privacy sensitive "improvements"?
Agreed.
I wasn't trying to diss WL as much as I was trying to question globaljustin's assertion that by choosing not to use WL as middle man to the press, Edward Snowden somehow proved himself to be a dishonest whistleblower (by which I took him to mean, have an agenda other than informing the public of these government programs -- I don't think many people are denying the truth of the actual contents of the leaks).
And that the reason why he might have chosen so, but that is beside the point, might be that they surely haven't been able to prevent Manning's terrible fate. Which is a large part of what they should be good at, in my book. All the more so if, as seems to be the case, the events leading up to Manning's capture happened after her contacts with WL. Of course it's possible that they tried to give him sound advice but it was ignored.
To falsify my point, if Snowden really was what he wants us to think he was (an honest, aw shucks I just want to help whistleblower) then he would have used his precious Wikileaks to get the information out.
Wait... So only if you use Wikileaks as channel you get to be an honest whistleblower, in your opinion?
Obviously there are many other ways. And the Wikileaks way didn't end very well for Chelsea Manning. Finally, I agree that GWB deserves more shit than he's being served of late, but that doesn't magically absolve BHO from maintaining and in may cases drastically extending these programs.
He is wisely using the drip, drip, drip method of disclosure so the press and public have time to
digest each successive piece of information
Not only that, but he gave the people in power time to LIE about it, and then get caught.
If he gave it out all at once, they could go over it, come up with their response and their lies and nobody would be able to refute them. However, forcing them to make their admissions and coverup lies one at a time put them at a huge disadvantage.
It was masterful.
Absolutely. Furthermore, I don't think it was a coincidence that the stories about warrantless spying on US citizens appeared well before the current stories about spying on supposed allies. Perhaps, if the American public had not (on average) reacted to the first batch with such contemptible apathy, the latter batch would have remained unreleased. No way to be sure, of course. But the order in which this happened can't have been an accident.
Point taken. I really hope there will be 3rd party candidate next time around worthy of this dubious "honour". Jello Biafra for president!
If you don't vote, you can't be differentiated from someone too lazy or too uninformed to vote.
Well that works both ways, though doesn't it? If you do vote, there is no way of telling if you really support that candidate or just narrowly came down on the lesser evil, from your point of view. So the winner will just go ahead and claim all votes for him/her are true believers, and feel empowered by a mandate that is way out of proportion.
I am not sure either way, but a radical drop in voter turn out is a signal that hasn't been tried yet, afaik.
We don't have to guess. There were people who tried to report problems the "right way", it didn't work.
Same goes with the Manning case. There were plenty of people that only reported injustices through the chain of command, nothing happened.
Indeed. See here if you're not sure.
I doubt voting will solve the problem, they will just lie and say they won , probably like they have done for a century anyway. Damn, all they do is lie and cheat people out of their rights to make things more convenient to their ambitions. Why choose between two liars? Vote for someone, just not a Repub or a Dem. Its easy!! Even a nut would be preferential to a lying thieving confidence man.
I appreciate the sentiment, but am starting to think that maybe it is time to stop voting as long as there are only lesser evils to choose from. We're encouraging them. I think Russel Brand is a bit of a douche, but this editorial strikes me as rather spot on.
It can't have been a coincidence that Snowden and partners in the press are releasing this in such a specific order. Only after the US populace at large proved (predictably, in my opinion) completely apathetic to the news of their governments unconstitutional spying on US citizens did they proceed to release data about the NSA snooping on international level.
Meanwhile there's no evidence that these leaks actually endangered any operatives, or concrete indications that terrorist cells have already adapted (hint, they weren't using digital comms much even before these "revelations"). So the editors seem to have done their job, it seems to me.
To say that some private citizen would be "the most lucky person in the world for taking [Snowden] out" is a fairly disgusting statement.
You seem to be confusing Germany with, I don't know, Iceland or something. The winters are not "brutal" and the country is definitely not "tiny".
Other than that, I agree that industrial espionage and the regular kind probably go hand in hand. Remember how Echelon intel somehow wound up at Boeing and allowed them to screw over the French Airbus? I'm sure it works both ways.
Mostly agree with your post, except I think this is not meant to "inflame anti-American sentiment" but rather it's timed to ride on that sentiment which is already quite inflamed enough, thank you very much, because of the US agencies' own doing.
To translate: Dutch politicians attempt to ruin their own software industry, do nothing to stop digital surveillance.
Well the proposal would be for a EU wide export ban, but I see your point and tend to agree it wouldn't solve much.
Still, it makes sense to try and change some things that are within ones own reach, at least for starters. And in the Netherlands, there is quite a bit of development of this type of surveillance software going on.
I worked for one of these companies for about a month until I figured out exactly how badly it disgusted me. The Netherlands is among the worst countries when it comes to phone taps, which is what this company specialized in, but they happily exported to places like China and worse.
So, is this enough? No. Is it a start in the right direction? Maybe.
Obama supporters / communists / progressive liberals (same things)
As I read your post it is at "-1, Insightful". Next we'll see a "+5, Troll" or something.
Slashdot is getting more confused by the minute. You clearly have no idea what either word "communist" or "progressive liberal" means if you think they are the same or that a typical Obama supporter is either.
the Bastard Operator From Hell at El Reg was looking for helldesk fodder... Coincidence? I think probably so.
The NSA didn't put them there, it was the GCHQ. The NSA then analyzed the data for them.
You are correct, it seems, but I don't think it really matters. We've seen, over the course of this whole Snowden saga, that these agencies are basically just proxies for one another so both can say they're not spying on their own. Just facilitating the other to do so and then share the data.
Of course it is more complicated, but GP was being a bit of a douche and I had little time to reply. The Vikings are doing pretty well, actually. Scandinavian nations rank high in most indices.
Clearly there are counter examples, but I don't think you can deny that having the huge material advantage from the bad old days is a major factor in how current wealth distribution came about.
This would not have been possible without hard work, to be sure, but I think would have been likewise impossible without this head start.
Native Americans tribes, or at least that's my impression, were not above pillaging and looting each other. But with different ideas of wealth and property from the European settlers (and each other probably). More to the point though, by that time it didn't really matter what they had aspired to beforehand.
Seriously, who cares about these poor, underdeveloped countries and why should we be helping them in any way? They are poor because of their own incompetence, corruption, and lawlessness.
Ah, you think that has nothing to do with being exploited and robbed bare for centuries? Somehow the countries with some of the most natural resources (esp gold, silver, diamond, but also copper, uranium, etc) are among the world's poorest. Go figure.
Conversely, this history of looting and pillaging is a large factor in why the currently wealthy countries became, well, wealthy.
A manned mission is laughable, and only fit for the movies.
Actually, going from past experience, not even that.