Justification: knowledge. The very dissemination of such information puts everyone on notice (even the world's "free people") that they are subject to potential surveillance. Even without due process. In other words wake up and CYA and personal privacy.
That's a naïve view of the "law". I know from working in government that various laws are worded so ambiguously that it is left up to "administrators" to "interpret" the laws and then implement laws based upon their own interpretations. The courts (or Congress) usually don't get involved in deciding the "Constitutionality" of law after the fact until a large enough dispute arises and even then the courts have to consider the "spirit" of the law (Congress's' intent) and not just the letter of the law. But in a system in which the government gets to set all the rules of the game, decide what is lawful or not in front of a population that is content to accept government's interpretation of intent and right and wrong, then in many circumstances those who stand accused have a very bleak legal prognosis regardless of whether government's actions, ill intent, agenda and legitimacy can be constitutionally justified. Like Snowden said, sometime the right thing to do is to break the law. Especially for a greater good. And I would argue that the greater good in this case is knowledge. For a democratic people cannot ascertain whether or not their government is acting not only legally but morally on their behalf without knowledge of what the government is doing.
I hate to say... but that's a pretty naïve view of post-9/11 America. Nothing takes precedence over national security. And who determines what "national security" is? The very elevated people who abandoned the Constitution in the name of national security. In other words, one has to "prove" something the game controllers don't want proven. And in a nation whose population is also preoccupied with their own safety and are willing to put complete trust in their government, what chance does someone like Snowden have? Even Daniel Ellsberg recently publicly stated that Snowden did the right thing. And from a practically point if view I'd have to agree. When Kerry can go on public TV (a number of times) and adjudicate Snowden as a "traitor and coward" and the hawks in government can essentially so the same, when the forces of government have come together to orchestrate a PR campaign poisoning public opinion, what kind of fair and public trial could there possibly be? Even Ellsberg asserted there would be tons of information relevant to a trial that would never be heard because they are classified state secrets. Snowden did what any person of conscience would've done these days when faced with such insurmountable opposition in an era of secrecy superseding if not the letter if the law then the spirit of the law (Constitutional law anyway).
That's not true of everyone. Chicken pox can have serious consequences short and long-term and not necessarily in individuals with weakened immune systems.
http://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/...
Wrong... herd immunity effects everyone. The few people that vaccinate the lower the herd immunity which increases the risk of resurgence and spread of preventable diseases. At the beginning of the 20th Century the Supreme Court ruled that people do not have a Constitutional right to NOT be vaccinated. It wasn't until later in the century and the belief of "Christian Science" and it's reliance upon prayer for cures, did various states begin passing "religious and philosophical exemptions" from inoculations, vaccines that benefitted society as a whole. So the fact that someone chooses to not get vaccinated means they are putting other members of society (and the world) at risk of spreading preventable diseases. We as a global community have some degree of responsibility to "our neighbors". Your view is narcissistic, even dangerous.
Completely contrary to known facts. According to the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, (blanket) immunizations are necessary to maintain what is known in epidemiology as "herd immunity". Outbreaks (of common preventable viral diseases) are most often the direct result of anti-vaccine misinformation. Witness recent outbreaks of whooping cough, polio, measles, etc. and a direct result of a decline in on-going herd immunity which results.
For real? I suppose denying knowledge of a government investigation via a NSL isn't lying even though you have knowledge of such an investigation (or request for information). NSLs require lying if a third part inquires about it.
I'm skeptical it's merely sloppy writing given the fact that it has become highly valued in government and private industry to have great skill at manipulating the language, thought processes and distorting the what is disseminated to the general public. I know (from working in and with both) that "doublespeak" is common practice. They truly believe the general public is gullible enough to initially believe anything they say. It is only when a whistleblower exposes the lies and misinformation that questions are asked.
You're convoluting the concept of faith. There's nothing in the classical definition and normal use of the word that specifies faith entails "acting upon". That sounds more like an evangelical extrapolation to bait followers into "evangelizing" and calling it faith. It's also an example of the very use (although mistakenly quite common) of the word faith as a synonym for the more accurate word "trust". They are not equivalent. Faith by technical definition is believing something without having any evidence for that belief. Where as "trust" is believing something based upon evidence. Now, take the Wright Bros. example. They didn't have "faith" their heavier than air vehicle would fly because they had witnessed previous evidence that it could. That's different than having faith it would fly even though they (nor anyone else) had ever witnessed a heavier than air body fly. People commonly misuse (perhaps purposely as an attempt to confuse understanding or out of pure ignorance) the words faith and trust.
One could legitimately assert the anti-Second Amendment crowd possess a just as irrational "phobia" at the sight of a gun. The very idea that a crowd walks into a restaurant with AR-15s, sits down to order a meal, spends time socializing, getting coffee, etc. and that sets people off is because of an irrational fear of guns. And a vast majority of those who object to such freedoms have never owned or operated a handgun. So they have a tendency to make people irrationally fearful. When was the last time a group of AR-15 owners walked into a restaurant and started to open fire on everyone? Never. In fact, the people present are in some sense safer because should any one suicidal person walk in and start shooting, there are others there to respond in kind.
That certainly didn't happen with Obama's promises on surveillance. Just the other day on PBS' Frontline program "The United States of Secrets" they showed a clip from one of Obama's 2007 campaign speeches in which he asserted that he would do away with domestic surveillance. He ended up keeping Bush's programs and since taking office expanded surveillance programs.
Nearly all of humanity is corruptible given the proper incentive. That's just human nature. So, if one starts with the premise that no human is perfect and/or has perfect motives, then put that person in a position of power and that power will corrupt that person's motives and actions. Thus, in a sense, it is the power that corrupts because power affords the opportunity for further degrees of corruption.
Even worse, the very fact that he is a "Constitutional scholar" means he understood the ramifications of undermining civil liberties. Which he has not hesitated [even lied about] in undermining [until the Snowden revelations]. Even the new bill passed by the House today failed to have any substantive effect on preserving privacy because it was so watered down from the original version it is practically meaningless. However, the American people will see that a bill was passed [without understanding what it did or didn't do] and they will be content in their ignorance that something was done. Politicians know that showboating is more effective than actual substantive action.
Well for one thing, since their party is more "hawkish" on foreign affairs, the odds are that we'd still be greatly involved in Afghanistan and probably more involved in the affairs of other troubled areas on the globe. At a great cost to the American taxpayers and military personnel. Which is an interesting irony since Republicans are the vanguard of cutting government spending. Which would probably mean further cuts to domestic programs including infrastructure rehabilitation and expansion, etc.
Well before 9/11. 1978 with the authorization of the FISA [act] and court. So it actually began before 1984. Ever since then, it's been a continuous series of one step back for personal freedoms. Another big contributor is western capitalism coupled with the WWW. ISPs have been co-conspirators in their business models that endeavor to capture every available data set as to what people do, where they are, who the communicate with, what they communicate, what they buy, etc. for the sake of "advertising", etc. In other words, the capitalistic business model does not respect personal privacy and as a result they have been witting [or even unwitting] accomplices in the retrenchment of privacy and personal liberties. The model could've been different. Business "could have" sold their products to prospective customers WITHOUT sharing personal information with countless "affiliates", business "partners", etc. for the sake of preserving personal privacy and thus individual liberties.
The Declaration of Independence is just that, a declaration of intent. It carries no force of law, constitutionally or other wise. It's vital that citizens recognize that the document is merely a reflection of historical milieu of the time. The point being, that just because the architects were influenced by culture at the time to briefly draw attention to the idea of a "creator" in the sense of granting certain "inalienable" rights, that does not in any way provide injunction against moving forward in knowledge and understanding of the natural world. The Constitution, which is the actual "legal" document makes no mention of a creator specifically because they believed that government is an institution formed and enforced by "man". That a deity, should one even exist plays no part in the legal functioning of the new government. That should one choose to pledge their soul to such a being, that the laws instituted by man supersede those proposed by religious doctrine. We live in a "secular" world and live by "secular" laws. As such, any reference to god, and in particular to the functioning of government is superficial at best.
The subject of "hating American freedom" isn't exactly spot on. Terrorist animosity toward the western world has [U.S. in particular] had a secret agreement with the Saudi family to supply the U.S. cheap oil in exchange for American military protection. Even against the Saudi's own countrymen. The sale of cheap oil was also seen as the Arab extremists as a "raping" of Saudi Arabia's natural resources. Also, the Saudi family tried to "modernize" the country against the wishes of the conservative Muslims. Third, Muslim radicals have for nearly a century objected to special treatment of the Jews on the part of the western world and the continued support that Israel receives today compared to considerations the Muslim Arabs and Palestinians in the region. Fourth, even though radical Muslims do foreswear the perceived "evils" of the western world, the do to a considerable degree object to our "freedoms". But concerns over those evils pale in comparison to the politics and economics.
Guess how one defines "dumb" and what the subject is. I would contend Americans are either dumb or apathetic. Especially when civil liberties are involved. Either way, you get the same result, inaction.
Lord Acton; "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." The very fact that people with "capabilities" be they the President of the U.S., Dept. of Defense Secretary, NSA director or a peon surveillance technician, the very capability is the corrupting factor. People can't resist exercising the power and capabilities they have; it's human nature. Thus, the very existence of such a corrupting technology makes the technology inherently destructive. So... I'd have to say, if the technology were not available to be exploited it wouldn't be a problem. Sure, people will always try to find a way to obtain "advance knowledge" or an advantage over an adversary, but it shouldn't be a routine technique for government to spy on its own citizens without a damn good reason. As far as I'm concerned, human nature is inherently corrupt. So why give it technologies that make it easier to be corrupt? Thus, I'd blame the existence of the technology, not people being assholes.
I have to wonder [with a considerable degree of skepticism] just how "many" jobs are created with all the corporate tax reductions that's been going on for thirty years now. Six employees here, two there, ten more here and there. Taking into consideration the degradation of the U.S. infrastructure, the nation's secondary education system, environmental management and protection, financial market oversight, etc. I'd have to seriously question whether or not the "give-backs" to corporate America has in the scheme of things actually benefited the U.S. We here a lot about a few jobs here and there but compared to what has been lost or undermined, it certainly is not an equitable trade-off as far as I'm concerned.
What! Nixon was delusional and preoccupied with his own power. He had wanted the Presidency for so long that once he got into office he was willing to brake the law in any fashion to keep it. In fact, no U.S. President has fully complied with established law in their day. There is no such thing as an honest politician.
Representative Democracy [supposedly] is technically what the U.S. is. But I believe that is merely a ruse to make people feel like they make a difference. For example; it is not the popular vote that elects Presidents, it's the Electoral College [elite if you will] because the "Founding Fathers" didn't completely trust the common person to be educated [or interested] enough to know how to run a country. In fact, it wasn't even until the beginning of the twentieth century that Senators were elected by "popular vote". As long as you can keep the people ignorant and in the dark as to their actual "power", the longer such a ruse can be perpetrated. America the land of the free and home of the ignorant.;}
Guess it matters what is meant by "imperialism". The market can also be imperialistic in the sense that it replicates the "snatch and grab" of militarism. One major difference is that the market tends to concentrate wealth into a select group of hands whereas militarism more often than not benefits a nation overall. So... which is worse?
Don't believe. The only resource the U.S. still has [of any quantity] is natural gas and coal. We get a majority of our other resources [rare metals, gems, wood, etc.] comes from overseas [Africa, S. America, Asia, etc.]. The premise that the U.S. could be self sufficient is ludicrous anymore. It is one of the reasons the U.S. is so aggressive militarily, to maintain hegemony over other people's natural resources. Military might has become the main mechanism for U.S. "superiority" globally. That is one reason the "hawks" in Congress keep insisting we must maintain a strong military. Kind of reminds me of Napoleon. Unfortunately, all [good] things must end. Literally every "empire" has collapsed eventually. And the emerging powers in Asia [China] and Eastern Europe [ Russia] are on the verge of empire now. Ultimately, it will mean a decreased standard of living because resources go where the power is.
Slashdot Mirror
Justification: knowledge. The very dissemination of such information puts everyone on notice (even the world's "free people") that they are subject to potential surveillance. Even without due process. In other words wake up and CYA and personal privacy.
That's a naïve view of the "law". I know from working in government that various laws are worded so ambiguously that it is left up to "administrators" to "interpret" the laws and then implement laws based upon their own interpretations. The courts (or Congress) usually don't get involved in deciding the "Constitutionality" of law after the fact until a large enough dispute arises and even then the courts have to consider the "spirit" of the law (Congress's' intent) and not just the letter of the law. But in a system in which the government gets to set all the rules of the game, decide what is lawful or not in front of a population that is content to accept government's interpretation of intent and right and wrong, then in many circumstances those who stand accused have a very bleak legal prognosis regardless of whether government's actions, ill intent, agenda and legitimacy can be constitutionally justified. Like Snowden said, sometime the right thing to do is to break the law. Especially for a greater good. And I would argue that the greater good in this case is knowledge. For a democratic people cannot ascertain whether or not their government is acting not only legally but morally on their behalf without knowledge of what the government is doing.
I hate to say... but that's a pretty naïve view of post-9/11 America. Nothing takes precedence over national security. And who determines what "national security" is? The very elevated people who abandoned the Constitution in the name of national security. In other words, one has to "prove" something the game controllers don't want proven. And in a nation whose population is also preoccupied with their own safety and are willing to put complete trust in their government, what chance does someone like Snowden have? Even Daniel Ellsberg recently publicly stated that Snowden did the right thing. And from a practically point if view I'd have to agree. When Kerry can go on public TV (a number of times) and adjudicate Snowden as a "traitor and coward" and the hawks in government can essentially so the same, when the forces of government have come together to orchestrate a PR campaign poisoning public opinion, what kind of fair and public trial could there possibly be? Even Ellsberg asserted there would be tons of information relevant to a trial that would never be heard because they are classified state secrets. Snowden did what any person of conscience would've done these days when faced with such insurmountable opposition in an era of secrecy superseding if not the letter if the law then the spirit of the law (Constitutional law anyway).
That's not true of everyone. Chicken pox can have serious consequences short and long-term and not necessarily in individuals with weakened immune systems. http://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/...
Wrong... herd immunity effects everyone. The few people that vaccinate the lower the herd immunity which increases the risk of resurgence and spread of preventable diseases. At the beginning of the 20th Century the Supreme Court ruled that people do not have a Constitutional right to NOT be vaccinated. It wasn't until later in the century and the belief of "Christian Science" and it's reliance upon prayer for cures, did various states begin passing "religious and philosophical exemptions" from inoculations, vaccines that benefitted society as a whole. So the fact that someone chooses to not get vaccinated means they are putting other members of society (and the world) at risk of spreading preventable diseases. We as a global community have some degree of responsibility to "our neighbors". Your view is narcissistic, even dangerous.
Completely contrary to known facts. According to the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, (blanket) immunizations are necessary to maintain what is known in epidemiology as "herd immunity". Outbreaks (of common preventable viral diseases) are most often the direct result of anti-vaccine misinformation. Witness recent outbreaks of whooping cough, polio, measles, etc. and a direct result of a decline in on-going herd immunity which results.
For real? I suppose denying knowledge of a government investigation via a NSL isn't lying even though you have knowledge of such an investigation (or request for information). NSLs require lying if a third part inquires about it.
I'm skeptical it's merely sloppy writing given the fact that it has become highly valued in government and private industry to have great skill at manipulating the language, thought processes and distorting the what is disseminated to the general public. I know (from working in and with both) that "doublespeak" is common practice. They truly believe the general public is gullible enough to initially believe anything they say. It is only when a whistleblower exposes the lies and misinformation that questions are asked.
According to the 2010 FBI crime reports, suicide is not included in the statistics for "murder". http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...
You're convoluting the concept of faith. There's nothing in the classical definition and normal use of the word that specifies faith entails "acting upon". That sounds more like an evangelical extrapolation to bait followers into "evangelizing" and calling it faith. It's also an example of the very use (although mistakenly quite common) of the word faith as a synonym for the more accurate word "trust". They are not equivalent. Faith by technical definition is believing something without having any evidence for that belief. Where as "trust" is believing something based upon evidence. Now, take the Wright Bros. example. They didn't have "faith" their heavier than air vehicle would fly because they had witnessed previous evidence that it could. That's different than having faith it would fly even though they (nor anyone else) had ever witnessed a heavier than air body fly. People commonly misuse (perhaps purposely as an attempt to confuse understanding or out of pure ignorance) the words faith and trust.
One could legitimately assert the anti-Second Amendment crowd possess a just as irrational "phobia" at the sight of a gun. The very idea that a crowd walks into a restaurant with AR-15s, sits down to order a meal, spends time socializing, getting coffee, etc. and that sets people off is because of an irrational fear of guns. And a vast majority of those who object to such freedoms have never owned or operated a handgun. So they have a tendency to make people irrationally fearful. When was the last time a group of AR-15 owners walked into a restaurant and started to open fire on everyone? Never. In fact, the people present are in some sense safer because should any one suicidal person walk in and start shooting, there are others there to respond in kind.
That certainly didn't happen with Obama's promises on surveillance. Just the other day on PBS' Frontline program "The United States of Secrets" they showed a clip from one of Obama's 2007 campaign speeches in which he asserted that he would do away with domestic surveillance. He ended up keeping Bush's programs and since taking office expanded surveillance programs.
Nearly all of humanity is corruptible given the proper incentive. That's just human nature. So, if one starts with the premise that no human is perfect and/or has perfect motives, then put that person in a position of power and that power will corrupt that person's motives and actions. Thus, in a sense, it is the power that corrupts because power affords the opportunity for further degrees of corruption.
Even worse, the very fact that he is a "Constitutional scholar" means he understood the ramifications of undermining civil liberties. Which he has not hesitated [even lied about] in undermining [until the Snowden revelations]. Even the new bill passed by the House today failed to have any substantive effect on preserving privacy because it was so watered down from the original version it is practically meaningless. However, the American people will see that a bill was passed [without understanding what it did or didn't do] and they will be content in their ignorance that something was done. Politicians know that showboating is more effective than actual substantive action.
Well for one thing, since their party is more "hawkish" on foreign affairs, the odds are that we'd still be greatly involved in Afghanistan and probably more involved in the affairs of other troubled areas on the globe. At a great cost to the American taxpayers and military personnel. Which is an interesting irony since Republicans are the vanguard of cutting government spending. Which would probably mean further cuts to domestic programs including infrastructure rehabilitation and expansion, etc.
Well before 9/11. 1978 with the authorization of the FISA [act] and court. So it actually began before 1984. Ever since then, it's been a continuous series of one step back for personal freedoms. Another big contributor is western capitalism coupled with the WWW. ISPs have been co-conspirators in their business models that endeavor to capture every available data set as to what people do, where they are, who the communicate with, what they communicate, what they buy, etc. for the sake of "advertising", etc. In other words, the capitalistic business model does not respect personal privacy and as a result they have been witting [or even unwitting] accomplices in the retrenchment of privacy and personal liberties. The model could've been different. Business "could have" sold their products to prospective customers WITHOUT sharing personal information with countless "affiliates", business "partners", etc. for the sake of preserving personal privacy and thus individual liberties.
The Declaration of Independence is just that, a declaration of intent. It carries no force of law, constitutionally or other wise. It's vital that citizens recognize that the document is merely a reflection of historical milieu of the time. The point being, that just because the architects were influenced by culture at the time to briefly draw attention to the idea of a "creator" in the sense of granting certain "inalienable" rights, that does not in any way provide injunction against moving forward in knowledge and understanding of the natural world. The Constitution, which is the actual "legal" document makes no mention of a creator specifically because they believed that government is an institution formed and enforced by "man". That a deity, should one even exist plays no part in the legal functioning of the new government. That should one choose to pledge their soul to such a being, that the laws instituted by man supersede those proposed by religious doctrine. We live in a "secular" world and live by "secular" laws. As such, any reference to god, and in particular to the functioning of government is superficial at best.
The subject of "hating American freedom" isn't exactly spot on. Terrorist animosity toward the western world has [U.S. in particular] had a secret agreement with the Saudi family to supply the U.S. cheap oil in exchange for American military protection. Even against the Saudi's own countrymen. The sale of cheap oil was also seen as the Arab extremists as a "raping" of Saudi Arabia's natural resources. Also, the Saudi family tried to "modernize" the country against the wishes of the conservative Muslims. Third, Muslim radicals have for nearly a century objected to special treatment of the Jews on the part of the western world and the continued support that Israel receives today compared to considerations the Muslim Arabs and Palestinians in the region. Fourth, even though radical Muslims do foreswear the perceived "evils" of the western world, the do to a considerable degree object to our "freedoms". But concerns over those evils pale in comparison to the politics and economics.
Guess how one defines "dumb" and what the subject is. I would contend Americans are either dumb or apathetic. Especially when civil liberties are involved. Either way, you get the same result, inaction.
Lord Acton; "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." The very fact that people with "capabilities" be they the President of the U.S., Dept. of Defense Secretary, NSA director or a peon surveillance technician, the very capability is the corrupting factor. People can't resist exercising the power and capabilities they have; it's human nature. Thus, the very existence of such a corrupting technology makes the technology inherently destructive. So... I'd have to say, if the technology were not available to be exploited it wouldn't be a problem. Sure, people will always try to find a way to obtain "advance knowledge" or an advantage over an adversary, but it shouldn't be a routine technique for government to spy on its own citizens without a damn good reason. As far as I'm concerned, human nature is inherently corrupt. So why give it technologies that make it easier to be corrupt? Thus, I'd blame the existence of the technology, not people being assholes.
I have to wonder [with a considerable degree of skepticism] just how "many" jobs are created with all the corporate tax reductions that's been going on for thirty years now. Six employees here, two there, ten more here and there. Taking into consideration the degradation of the U.S. infrastructure, the nation's secondary education system, environmental management and protection, financial market oversight, etc. I'd have to seriously question whether or not the "give-backs" to corporate America has in the scheme of things actually benefited the U.S. We here a lot about a few jobs here and there but compared to what has been lost or undermined, it certainly is not an equitable trade-off as far as I'm concerned.
What! Nixon was delusional and preoccupied with his own power. He had wanted the Presidency for so long that once he got into office he was willing to brake the law in any fashion to keep it. In fact, no U.S. President has fully complied with established law in their day. There is no such thing as an honest politician.
Representative Democracy [supposedly] is technically what the U.S. is. But I believe that is merely a ruse to make people feel like they make a difference. For example; it is not the popular vote that elects Presidents, it's the Electoral College [elite if you will] because the "Founding Fathers" didn't completely trust the common person to be educated [or interested] enough to know how to run a country. In fact, it wasn't even until the beginning of the twentieth century that Senators were elected by "popular vote". As long as you can keep the people ignorant and in the dark as to their actual "power", the longer such a ruse can be perpetrated. America the land of the free and home of the ignorant. ;}
Guess it matters what is meant by "imperialism". The market can also be imperialistic in the sense that it replicates the "snatch and grab" of militarism. One major difference is that the market tends to concentrate wealth into a select group of hands whereas militarism more often than not benefits a nation overall. So... which is worse?
Don't believe. The only resource the U.S. still has [of any quantity] is natural gas and coal. We get a majority of our other resources [rare metals, gems, wood, etc.] comes from overseas [Africa, S. America, Asia, etc.]. The premise that the U.S. could be self sufficient is ludicrous anymore. It is one of the reasons the U.S. is so aggressive militarily, to maintain hegemony over other people's natural resources. Military might has become the main mechanism for U.S. "superiority" globally. That is one reason the "hawks" in Congress keep insisting we must maintain a strong military. Kind of reminds me of Napoleon. Unfortunately, all [good] things must end. Literally every "empire" has collapsed eventually. And the emerging powers in Asia [China] and Eastern Europe [ Russia] are on the verge of empire now. Ultimately, it will mean a decreased standard of living because resources go where the power is.