I also agree there are likely some very dangerous people held at GITMO. And I completely agree with everything you wrote, so I'll just quote it along with this news story which hit just hours after my score 5 'release all the gitmo prisoners' post- (could be I subconsciously knew of the scheduled release, though the article mentions nothing of the procedural timeline or any events which triggerred this 'milestone')
(Parent comment from oobayly that I would self-mod higher than my score5 'free them all' comment. Though I believe that freeing them all is a net US security win compared to freeing/processing-out-of-gitmo none of them, or freeing/processing-out-of-gitmo them as slowly as the U.S. has been)
The charge them with the crimes they're accused of committing. If you're going to hold foreigners up to your principles and beliefs then it's insanely hypocritical to not afford them the protections that you believe people deserve.
I don't disagree that there are some very dangerous people held at Guantanamo Bay, but to detain them without trial for years on end means that the US government has lost every scrap of respect when it comes to "protecting peoples' rights""
Gitmo is full of really dangerous and nasty people who were most likely plotting to murder innocents for the cause of religious zealotry.
That is a load of complete and utter bullshit. If I wanted to spend 5 minutes netsearching mainstream sources I could easily refute that. GITMO is filled with political prisoners, that have long since paid for their crime. Even if every one of them had Osama Bin Laden's bloodlust to kill innocent U.S. citizens, freeing them all would still be an enhancement to the long term security and liberty of U.S. citizens. Holding the GITMO detainees as we have, and I might add 4 years beyond Obama's day 1 in office signed pledge to get them the hell away from GITMO,... holding them there is an absolute stain on the nation of the United States of America the likes of which only the terrabytes of revelations of Snowden can compete with.
That was beautiful. I only wonder if we'll see the day when Snowden, Manning and Assange are granted freedom. And when the inmates at GITMO are allowed to tell their stories in complete detail, and we are allowed to hear them.
So basically no online banking platform can be safe once these exploits are released into the public? I do wonder though how they do it though.
I'm not quite sure I understand your question. I would rearrange the ideas this way- No online banking platform will be safe until these exploits are known publicly, and defended against technicly. As to your title- makes you long for the days of flash-write-protect jumpers and dipswitches doesn't it...
Again, you are coming off as disingenous by making such obviously too-far-reaching arguments. I'm sure any country's basic SIGINT operations are valuable enough for some level of mitigation of asymmetric threats.
So what do you say about the recent review that found that 0 terrorist threats were averted by the NSA's broad-reaching data gathering?
I say that believing that at face value will hurt you in the debate. I suspect it is probably disinformation, designed to provoke opponents into relying on that information. I'm trying to prepare the debate for the eventuality that the NSA comes back in 6 months, and either reveals, or simply fabricates a list of threats they defeated, "but couldn't reveal ealier, because it would have empowered further terrorists/criminals".
And I'm prepared to consider the possibility that maybe lives were saved, rapes averted. But the question for how to react to the whole scenario depends on a big picture that includes that, as well as larger issues of subversion of the free-speech based democratic process. People in favor of liberty and free speech need to be fully prepared for the police-state argument that routine home searches without warrants can stop some amount of violent crime. It's a real argument, that is not disingenous. But one needs to point to examples in recent history where that was abused to such a level, that the overall effect on the average human was much worse, even if some violent crimes were thwarted by the police-state.
What needs to happen is for their evil deeds to come into public view (many have, I'm sure many other relevant ones will sooner or later). And then for judges, under no threat of NSA Kompromat/LOVINT/SEXINT, to rule these practices as blatantly in violation of human and constitutional rights. And in fact as basically treasonous. Because compiling a LOVINT/SEXINT database of your entire nation, or all of humanity, is simply too dangerous a tool for the neo-stasi to get ahold of.
Yes, sure, but we see judges split on this already. If the NSAs budget were set to 0 (the worst possible fate for any government organization), it would stand as an object lesson to future US intelligence organizations for generations to come. As there's no current major power threatening war, I don't see any significant downside to simply ending the NSA and letting other agencies pick up the slack. Sure, our SIGINT would be bad for a couple years, but it's just not that valuable in peacetime to begin with. And we might instead focus on the HUMINT which has proven itself useful.
This is purely my opinion, and not a strong one, but I see the budget-setting-to-zero as a political theatre/stunt that will only have the lasting value dampening the public rage against the specific human rights abuses. I say focus on the human rights abuses, not on the budgets. And by human rights abuses, I mean both the known, and the potential (Kompromat et al)
It's increasingly clear that Snowden is being "handled" though. We shouldn't overlook the fact that he is a prime target for exploitation, by the Russians, by whoever ends up with him. If he does indeed go to Germany and help them defeat NSA spying in that country, well then the treason label fits.
If you are correct about "the treason label" (which I don't think you are, but lets do some serious debating here), then I think it is time to seriously re-examine "the treason label". Let's, for debate purposes, replace "spying on all people" with "beating up and extorting money from a few people". Just because many would try to defend the former, but not the latter. If Snowden had gone to another country, and taken knowledge that would help prevent some people from being beaten up and extorted, then I don't think even you would think "the treason label" fits. I for one, if supreme unbending national allegience is the measure, am a traitor. I believe that the human rights of foreignors, outweigh in many cases, strategic benefits to my domestic neighbors.
Lock me up. Throw away the key. Seriously though, the days of running rampage with your tribe, and saying 'fuck if I care about what happens to the rest of the global population' are coming to an end. That is a fact.
So far, there's no evidence that the NSA was doing anything of value.
I'm all for an independent investigation into whether or not the NSA has corrupted the judicial branch with a Kompromat database, but I think you do the nation a disservice with that kind of easily refutable hyperbole. In all likelyhood, the worst abuses were successfully compartmentalized away from many NSA employees that were reasonably doing good jobs in defense of their country, and perhaps even with the best interests of the world at heart.
Sure, in theory they have a mission which might possibly be valuable were it focused the right way, maybe. Maybe. But half their mission - making info security better for Americans - is now permanently destroyed. No one in crypto circles will ever trust the NSA again: they burned that bridge and lost their ability to give back to the public sector.
Again, you are going too far in your argument. First, people have short memories. FBI's COINTELPRO, the Church hearings (nothing to do with religion), etc. Anybody who "trusted" the NSA for the past decade was just plain ignorant of history. I mean, this is the same government, that, in the span of human history, just yesterday allowed whites to enslave blacks, and denied women the right to vote. Anybody whose "trust" in any part of this or any government wasn't *rationally _measured_*... well, wake up and smell the coffee of life.
So all that's left to the NSA is SIGINT, and that's have proven worthless for asymmetric threats.
Again, you are coming off as disingenous by making such obviously too-far-reaching arguments. I'm sure any country's basic SIGINT operations are valuable enough for some level of mitigation of asymmetric threats.
Yes, it would be good to have SIGINT the next time a major nation goes to war, but at this point I'd rather it wasn't the NSA doing that. Let the NSA die, and the legitimate SIGINT role can pass on to military intelligence or some other group with no motivation to spy on US citizens, or steal secrets from foreign companies to share with US companies.
I think you have the right feelings about the operation (violation of human and constitutional rights, etc). But I'm worried you aren't headed in the direction of viable improvement to the situation. The NSA, for all intents and purposes *is* 'military intelligence'. Renaming them to something other than NSA probably isn't going to happen, and if it did, isn't going to help. What needs to happen is for their evil deeds to come into public view (many have, I'm sure many other relevant ones will sooner or later). And then for judges, under no threat of NSA Kompromat/LOVINT/SEXINT, to rule these practices as blatantly in violation of human and constitutional rights. And in fact as basically treasonous. Because compiling a LOVINT/SEXINT database of your entire nation, or all of humanity, is simply too dangerous a tool for the neo-stasi to get ahold of.
>> Not for "our" benefit, unless we're Russians or Chinese. Personally I'm American, and consider Snowden a traitor.
> Personally, I'm an an American and I consider you an idiot.
Remember to quote what you are replying to when appropriate. As here where the >> above got disappeared as 0:flamebait (an inappropriate mod IMHO, though I would also be of the opinion of executing the commenter as a traitor for that sentiment, so it all balances out I guess). I.e. in the current slashdot rendering it looks like you are calling an idiot the >>> and not >>
fortunately I just turn off the wifi when I put the machine to sleep. it still does it, but at least I know it isn't sending anything to anyone.
And you are 'turning off' the wifi exactly how? Disconnecting the antenna, or trusting the software switch? (as opposed to a hardware switch interrupting the power or antenna, wouldn't that be a nice feature...)
In his line of work, it is the price of doing what he did.
And he was a very courageous and public-spirited man for doing it.
I for one, would not have the courage and selflessness to make such a sacrifice.
Compare what he did with the thousands of morons running around at the moment killing themselves and others in the name of some sort of god.
As I watch Elysium, and consider the obvious parallels to the ghettos of the ST:DS9 episode "past tense" as well as all the ghettos of human history, and then read your comment... I think while some of your statement seems admirable, you are kind of a twit for calling people 'morons' who find themselves growing up amidst poverty and corruption. Life is tough. Spend more time listening and empathizing, even with those that are your enemy, and you and all of us will be better off in the long run.
Snowden better make sure he doesn't get caught, he embarrassed too many people and we always need a new distraction from the Obamacare debacle.
It seems obvious enough that Snowden has an effective enough dead-man's switch. Right now he and his associated reporters seem to be successfully and delicately balancing the releasing of information, as well as the concealing of further information, as well as public statements. They can't release everything, else the dead man's switch would probably be nullified. But they can apparently release enough to keep the issue in the news and courts. Which even if the courts rule in unpleasant ways, is still a vast step up over the previous years of the NSA treating the public as 'sheeple'.
the problem is that the ISPs will not allow you to use the internet properly (e.g. hosting your own data on your own server at home
That's a pile of bullshit. ISP's don't give a shit about private servers on home service connections, and most don't even care if they're public as long as it's not a "business grade" server. And even if they do, that's for residential "buffet style" internet access, every ISP in the country will happily sell you a business account where you can run servers 24/7.
And what are the price differentials the residential user sees if they purchase that "business grade" service? What if the only feature of the business grade service they were interested in was not having their home server's traffic discriminated against? (i.e. not needing more 9s of uptime or any other part of the 'business grade' service). The answer is an absolutely ridiculous premium in price, often by a factor of well over 100%. This is a convenient way for the established internet giants to prevent home hosted servers from competing with the services they provide with their servers connected to their endpoints of 'the internet'.
What such 'business grade' service is really about, is about the ISPs getting to 'take a cut' of any profitable innovative home-hosted server based business. And it's a 'cut' that is entirely unjustified based on any actual expense the ISP incurs (the home hosted server is still regulated by the same bandwidth policies as any youtube-addict uploading gigabytes of lol-cat videos). Basically the issue is entirely about the concept of how "net neutrality" was supposed to level the playing field for all server operators connected to the internet, by forbidding arbitrary traffic discrimination, that was tantamount to network operators demanding an extra tax on profitable/valued internet traffic.
The insecurity is on the side of the NSA. They wouldn't go through such hoops if we didn't have the most powerful freedom tool ever, namely the Internet.
Use it properly and they shall vanish.
You are right. But the problem is that the ISPs will not allow you to use the internet properly (e.g. hosting your own data on your own server at home, thus giving it the strongest possible U.S. 4th ammendment 'papers' protection.
Obviously, if you don't want the NSA to read your data, make sure they can't read them. Make sure your data is not stored outside your control by someone who could at least in theory read it (like Lavabit). Make sure the data is not stored in the USA at all if you can avoid it.
Unfortunately there are large hypocritical corporations as well as governments colluding to prevent people from being more in control of their data by hosting it on residential servers.
I read some old testament. Brilliant stuff in there. Slavery is OK, as is polygamy, genocide is great, especially where children are slaughtered. If you capture a woman in a battle you can shave her head and let her grieve for a month before you start banging her. But homosexuality? Verrrrrry bad. Much like counting to 5, it's "right out!";) Of course, none of these criticisms would stick if Christians just dropped the old testament, but it's got a few bits in it that they like (e.g. homosexuality is evil) so it has to be kept around for now I guess.
That used to be my critique of christianity as well. But then I read more of the new testament, specifically, the stuff about Jesus. It turns out, that the mainstream religious *context* of Jesus's life, is absolutely critical to understanding his story (or at least, at this point in my life, that is what I have come to believe). The need to carry around a large amount of historical context to understand the story of Jesus, is why I believe the humans who chose the modern christian canon, made it so heavily weighted (~80%?) with the 'old' testament.
Another example of obvious insanity you forgot to mention was routine genital mutilation. If you really want to understand christianity, I would start with a focused research on that topic, looking at the whole of how it is discussed in both the old and new testament. Then read on from there. At some point, you may, like I, return to the state of not feeling to need to look so deeply into dark ugliness of that book (all the things we've mentioned here and more). But you probably will never again look at christianity and imagine that it 'soft-sold' the reality of human behavior. You are welcome to blame all that ugly human behavior on religion and christianity itself, but then, I would urge you to move on from religious texts to nature documentary videos.
Don't get me wrong - I love the US. But they tend to think that democracy and capitalism are one and the same and that's not true.
This, and your first paragraph, I absolutely agree with. but...
People don't exist to serve artificial constructs like corporations. People exist to help serve and better the human race
Here you have begun to project your desires of how you wish other people thought. People exist because we are biological organisms in this living universe. Or people don't exist because their would-be parents lived in a region of the living universe that wasn't able to support their successful breeding.
Candidly, I think the world is a more violent, aggressive and dangerous place to live in today than it has been in the past.
Really? I'm sure it depends on your geographic region, but here in the U.S. I remember *common* crime being more prevalent before the rise of pervasive mobile phones. Unfortunately I also bear witness to the increase in truly sinister new-age crime enabled by technology compounding historic human nature of spying and coercion.
That being said, it's still better than anything coming out of the cultural toilet that is the Middle East, China and Russia.
Hmm... I wish I could point to a lot of culture from those places that I like. I admit I tend to imagine that the free speech rhetoric I've been conditioned with has led to better rock music, movies, video games, and other art. But I still have hopes that in the not too distant future the cultural walls will disolve and the billions of people in those places will start producing more art and entertainment that I like. Unfortunately I think there are some large corporations that want to keep a lid on the new-age of de-scarcified art enabled by the internet and digital reproduction. Hopefully we'll see them crumble in the long term.
Collecting unanalyzed data is a waste of time and effort. Period.
It is much, much worse than that. Collecting unalyzed data that, in more nefarious hands, can be used for extortion and political manipulation, in part because it was collected en-masse, is a criminal violation of spirit of the 4th ammendment to the U.S. constitution, if not the interpretable letter of it.
Not only that, but if in order to collect it, you had weaken the security systems used by the masses for their communications, you are basically making all those systems easier to attack for everyone. This is what has happened, both directly with things like the $10M to RSA, and indirectly, just by having a quid-pro-quo where all the tech companies are blissfully happy to not invest in real security for their users, because the more influential government overlords are totally cool with it. They leak the vulnerabilities they discover that they want fixed, and enjoy a massive trove of vulnerabilities they keep for themselves (and unknown numbers of others clever enough to discover them as well)
Snowden exists and is still alive, while the Jesus of the Christian Bible is a myth.
Really? I label myself a christian, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that both Snowden and Jesus, have mythical qualities. Both Snowden and Jesus are people whose lives I have but the faintest glimmer of vision into. There is vastly more that I don't know about them, their actions, and the context of their actions, than what I do know.
Crucifixion was a horribly real and painful way to die.
Do you really meet many people who dispute statements of yours like that? If not, why do you make them?
Snowden tells us about dire events that are happening now, the Christian Bible has vague prophesies.
I know I've been taught to ignore people like you, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. Please realize that just about any old book you pick up, by the mere fact of its existence, is likely to have some useful lesson to teach about your human life, amongst society. If you'd prefer to read books other than 'the' Christian Bible (as if there were just one, check out the copyright restrictions on the NIV edition if you want to amuse yourself someday), that's your prerogative. If you've already read an edition of the christian bible, and that is your analysis, then I think you weren't actually seeking any wisdom. I'll go ahead and be the christian that states out loud and bursts your bubble- "no, any christian that told you that the bible was some kind of future prediction user manual for your life was lying to you. It's not like you say to yourself, I wonder whats going to happen to me a week from friday, well, lets turn to page 42 and see what it is". It's a little more complex, subtle, nuanced, and yeah, self-contradictory than that.
Jesus guys, come down a bit please. WTF would he be tortured? WTF would his siblings be bothered other than being harder for them to get security clearances?
Coincidentally enough, the answer to your question should be 'bloody obvious on this day, particularly with the first word you chose to use. Even for the non-believer, Jesus was a good reminder about modes of government intimidation. The authorities and masses couldn't get Jesus to un-say what he had already said. But they sure could terrorize the populace into preventing anyone from standing up to them again.
He put himself in the position he's in, no-one else did it to him. Him and Assange are the new generation of Mesiah's who are using a different means in order to grab fame and power. They are doing quite nicely thanks to their reporter mates.
James Russell Lowell - " Once to every man and nation Comes the moment to decide, In the strife of truth and falsehood, For the good or evil side; Some great cause, God's new Messiah, Off'ring each the bloom or blight, And the choice goes by forever Twixt that darkness and that light. Though the cause of evil prosper, Yet 'tis truth alone is strong; Though her portion be the scaffold, And upon the throne be wrong: Yet that scaffold sways the future, And behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow Keeping watch above his own. "
" (previously on Obama's website): 'Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.'
While the connection between such blatant hypocrisy and its intentional "removal" from the internet remains speculative, the coincidence is too great to ignore. Moreover, it is hard not to recall George Orwell's 1984 and the Ministry of Truth's epic programs to rewrite history in an attempt to save face. "
> Jesus Fucking Christ, this man is going to spend the rest of his life, in extreme, rational fear for his life, and the lives of anyone he has ever, or will ever love. Cut the man some fucking slack you asshole.
Hopefully you're wrong. Hopefully he'll be caught and no longer be in fear.
It sounds like you are OK with his being imprisoned and/or tortured and/or executed, and the same for anyone who was ever close to him, and perhaps another love-hop from there because authorities believe it makes the crucifixion more effective?
Snowden appears to have done the right thing, for the right reasons. He served our best interests.
I appreciate what Snowden is saying, but perhaps fewer narcissistic platitudes and more documents on the front pages? Snowden isn't Jesus, the more he toots "It's not about me", the more it becomes about him
Jesus Fucking Christ, this man is going to spend the rest of his life, in extreme, rational fear for his life, and the lives of anyone he has ever, or will ever love. Cut the man some fucking slack you asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
I also agree there are likely some very dangerous people held at GITMO. And I completely agree with everything you wrote, so I'll just quote it along with this news story which hit just hours after my score 5 'release all the gitmo prisoners' post- (could be I subconsciously knew of the scheduled release, though the article mentions nothing of the procedural timeline or any events which triggerred this 'milestone')
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25558891
"
31 December 2013 Last updated at 10:32 ET
Guantanamo Bay: US hails 'milestone' release of Chinese Uighurs
"
(Parent comment from oobayly that I would self-mod higher than my score5 'free them all' comment. Though I believe that freeing them all is a net US security win compared to freeing/processing-out-of-gitmo none of them, or freeing/processing-out-of-gitmo them as slowly as the U.S. has been)
The charge them with the crimes they're accused of committing. If you're going to hold foreigners up to your principles and beliefs then it's insanely hypocritical to not afford them the protections that you believe people deserve.
I don't disagree that there are some very dangerous people held at Guantanamo Bay, but to detain them without trial for years on end means that the US government has lost every scrap of respect when it comes to "protecting peoples' rights""
Gitmo is full of really dangerous and nasty people who were most likely plotting to murder innocents for the cause of religious zealotry.
That is a load of complete and utter bullshit. If I wanted to spend 5 minutes netsearching mainstream sources I could easily refute that. GITMO is filled with political prisoners, that have long since paid for their crime. Even if every one of them had Osama Bin Laden's bloodlust to kill innocent U.S. citizens, freeing them all would still be an enhancement to the long term security and liberty of U.S. citizens. Holding the GITMO detainees as we have, and I might add 4 years beyond Obama's day 1 in office signed pledge to get them the hell away from GITMO, ... holding them there is an absolute stain on the nation of the United States of America the likes of which only the terrabytes of revelations of Snowden can compete with.
That was beautiful. I only wonder if we'll see the day when Snowden, Manning and Assange are granted freedom. And when the inmates at GITMO are allowed to tell their stories in complete detail, and we are allowed to hear them.
So basically no online banking platform can be safe once these exploits are released into the public? I do wonder though how they do it though.
I'm not quite sure I understand your question. I would rearrange the ideas this way- No online banking platform will be safe until these exploits are known publicly, and defended against technicly. As to your title- makes you long for the days of flash-write-protect jumpers and dipswitches doesn't it...
Again, you are coming off as disingenous by making such obviously too-far-reaching arguments. I'm sure any country's basic SIGINT operations are valuable enough for some level of mitigation of asymmetric threats.
So what do you say about the recent review that found that 0 terrorist threats were averted by the NSA's broad-reaching data gathering?
I say that believing that at face value will hurt you in the debate. I suspect it is probably disinformation, designed to provoke opponents into relying on that information. I'm trying to prepare the debate for the eventuality that the NSA comes back in 6 months, and either reveals, or simply fabricates a list of threats they defeated, "but couldn't reveal ealier, because it would have empowered further terrorists/criminals".
And I'm prepared to consider the possibility that maybe lives were saved, rapes averted. But the question for how to react to the whole scenario depends on a big picture that includes that, as well as larger issues of subversion of the free-speech based democratic process. People in favor of liberty and free speech need to be fully prepared for the police-state argument that routine home searches without warrants can stop some amount of violent crime. It's a real argument, that is not disingenous. But one needs to point to examples in recent history where that was abused to such a level, that the overall effect on the average human was much worse, even if some violent crimes were thwarted by the police-state.
What needs to happen is for their evil deeds to come into public view (many have, I'm sure many other relevant ones will sooner or later). And then for judges, under no threat of NSA Kompromat/LOVINT/SEXINT, to rule these practices as blatantly in violation of human and constitutional rights. And in fact as basically treasonous. Because compiling a LOVINT/SEXINT database of your entire nation, or all of humanity, is simply too dangerous a tool for the neo-stasi to get ahold of.
Yes, sure, but we see judges split on this already. If the NSAs budget were set to 0 (the worst possible fate for any government organization), it would stand as an object lesson to future US intelligence organizations for generations to come. As there's no current major power threatening war, I don't see any significant downside to simply ending the NSA and letting other agencies pick up the slack. Sure, our SIGINT would be bad for a couple years, but it's just not that valuable in peacetime to begin with. And we might instead focus on the HUMINT which has proven itself useful.
This is purely my opinion, and not a strong one, but I see the budget-setting-to-zero as a political theatre/stunt that will only have the lasting value dampening the public rage against the specific human rights abuses. I say focus on the human rights abuses, not on the budgets. And by human rights abuses, I mean both the known, and the potential (Kompromat et al)
It's increasingly clear that Snowden is being "handled" though. We shouldn't overlook the fact that he is a prime target for exploitation, by the Russians, by whoever ends up with him. If he does indeed go to Germany and help them defeat NSA spying in that country, well then the treason label fits.
If you are correct about "the treason label" (which I don't think you are, but lets do some serious debating here), then I think it is time to seriously re-examine "the treason label". Let's, for debate purposes, replace "spying on all people" with "beating up and extorting money from a few people". Just because many would try to defend the former, but not the latter. If Snowden had gone to another country, and taken knowledge that would help prevent some people from being beaten up and extorted, then I don't think even you would think "the treason label" fits. I for one, if supreme unbending national allegience is the measure, am a traitor. I believe that the human rights of foreignors, outweigh in many cases, strategic benefits to my domestic neighbors.
Lock me up. Throw away the key. Seriously though, the days of running rampage with your tribe, and saying 'fuck if I care about what happens to the rest of the global population' are coming to an end. That is a fact.
So far, there's no evidence that the NSA was doing anything of value.
I'm all for an independent investigation into whether or not the NSA has corrupted the judicial branch with a Kompromat database, but I think you do the nation a disservice with that kind of easily refutable hyperbole. In all likelyhood, the worst abuses were successfully compartmentalized away from many NSA employees that were reasonably doing good jobs in defense of their country, and perhaps even with the best interests of the world at heart.
Sure, in theory they have a mission which might possibly be valuable were it focused the right way, maybe. Maybe. But half their mission - making info security better for Americans - is now permanently destroyed. No one in crypto circles will ever trust the NSA again: they burned that bridge and lost their ability to give back to the public sector.
Again, you are going too far in your argument. First, people have short memories. FBI's COINTELPRO, the Church hearings (nothing to do with religion), etc. Anybody who "trusted" the NSA for the past decade was just plain ignorant of history. I mean, this is the same government, that, in the span of human history, just yesterday allowed whites to enslave blacks, and denied women the right to vote. Anybody whose "trust" in any part of this or any government wasn't *rationally _measured_*... well, wake up and smell the coffee of life.
So all that's left to the NSA is SIGINT, and that's have proven worthless for asymmetric threats.
Again, you are coming off as disingenous by making such obviously too-far-reaching arguments. I'm sure any country's basic SIGINT operations are valuable enough for some level of mitigation of asymmetric threats.
Yes, it would be good to have SIGINT the next time a major nation goes to war, but at this point I'd rather it wasn't the NSA doing that. Let the NSA die, and the legitimate SIGINT role can pass on to military intelligence or some other group with no motivation to spy on US citizens, or steal secrets from foreign companies to share with US companies.
I think you have the right feelings about the operation (violation of human and constitutional rights, etc). But I'm worried you aren't headed in the direction of viable improvement to the situation. The NSA, for all intents and purposes *is* 'military intelligence'. Renaming them to something other than NSA probably isn't going to happen, and if it did, isn't going to help. What needs to happen is for their evil deeds to come into public view (many have, I'm sure many other relevant ones will sooner or later). And then for judges, under no threat of NSA Kompromat/LOVINT/SEXINT, to rule these practices as blatantly in violation of human and constitutional rights. And in fact as basically treasonous. Because compiling a LOVINT/SEXINT database of your entire nation, or all of humanity, is simply too dangerous a tool for the neo-stasi to get ahold of.
>> Not for "our" benefit, unless we're Russians or Chinese. Personally I'm American, and consider Snowden a traitor.
> Personally, I'm an an American and I consider you an idiot.
Remember to quote what you are replying to when appropriate. As here where the >> above got disappeared as 0:flamebait (an inappropriate mod IMHO, though I would also be of the opinion of executing the commenter as a traitor for that sentiment, so it all balances out I guess). I.e. in the current slashdot rendering it looks like you are calling an idiot the >>> and not >>
Yes, we can retitle from "Not All Bugs Are Random" to "White-Box Testing Is A Real Thing"
KDbus ... A lot of this is driven by desktop projects, so things like smooth transition to a login screen ...
I'll bite- how does K/Dbus help with a smooth transition to a login screen?
fortunately I just turn off the wifi when I put the machine to sleep. it still does it, but at least I know it isn't sending anything to anyone.
And you are 'turning off' the wifi exactly how? Disconnecting the antenna, or trusting the software switch? (as opposed to a hardware switch interrupting the power or antenna, wouldn't that be a nice feature...)
In his line of work, it is the price of doing what he did.
And he was a very courageous and public-spirited man for doing it.
I for one, would not have the courage and selflessness to make such a sacrifice.
Compare what he did with the thousands of morons running around at the moment killing themselves and others in the name of some sort of god.
As I watch Elysium, and consider the obvious parallels to the ghettos of the ST:DS9 episode "past tense" as well as all the ghettos of human history, and then read your comment... I think while some of your statement seems admirable, you are kind of a twit for calling people 'morons' who find themselves growing up amidst poverty and corruption. Life is tough. Spend more time listening and empathizing, even with those that are your enemy, and you and all of us will be better off in the long run.
Snowden better make sure he doesn't get caught, he embarrassed too many people and we always need a new distraction from the Obamacare debacle.
It seems obvious enough that Snowden has an effective enough dead-man's switch. Right now he and his associated reporters seem to be successfully and delicately balancing the releasing of information, as well as the concealing of further information, as well as public statements. They can't release everything, else the dead man's switch would probably be nullified. But they can apparently release enough to keep the issue in the news and courts. Which even if the courts rule in unpleasant ways, is still a vast step up over the previous years of the NSA treating the public as 'sheeple'.
the problem is that the ISPs will not allow you to use the internet properly (e.g. hosting your own data on your own server at home
That's a pile of bullshit. ISP's don't give a shit about private servers on home service connections, and most don't even care if they're public as long as it's not a "business grade" server.
And even if they do, that's for residential "buffet style" internet access, every ISP in the country will happily sell you a business account where you can run servers 24/7.
And what are the price differentials the residential user sees if they purchase that "business grade" service? What if the only feature of the business grade service they were interested in was not having their home server's traffic discriminated against? (i.e. not needing more 9s of uptime or any other part of the 'business grade' service). The answer is an absolutely ridiculous premium in price, often by a factor of well over 100%. This is a convenient way for the established internet giants to prevent home hosted servers from competing with the services they provide with their servers connected to their endpoints of 'the internet'.
What such 'business grade' service is really about, is about the ISPs getting to 'take a cut' of any profitable innovative home-hosted server based business. And it's a 'cut' that is entirely unjustified based on any actual expense the ISP incurs (the home hosted server is still regulated by the same bandwidth policies as any youtube-addict uploading gigabytes of lol-cat videos). Basically the issue is entirely about the concept of how "net neutrality" was supposed to level the playing field for all server operators connected to the internet, by forbidding arbitrary traffic discrimination, that was tantamount to network operators demanding an extra tax on profitable/valued internet traffic.
The insecurity is on the side of the NSA.
They wouldn't go through such hoops if we didn't have the most powerful freedom tool ever, namely the Internet.
Use it properly and they shall vanish.
You are right. But the problem is that the ISPs will not allow you to use the internet properly (e.g. hosting your own data on your own server at home, thus giving it the strongest possible U.S. 4th ammendment 'papers' protection.
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/google-we-can-ban-servers-on-fiber-without-violating-net-neutrality/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers
http://crossies.com/pissed.html
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/google-fiber-now-explicitly-permits-home-servers/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/01/198327/googles-call-for-open-internet.html
Obviously, if you don't want the NSA to read your data, make sure they can't read them. Make sure your data is not stored outside your control by someone who could at least in theory read it (like Lavabit). Make sure the data is not stored in the USA at all if you can avoid it.
Unfortunately there are large hypocritical corporations as well as governments colluding to prevent people from being more in control of their data by hosting it on residential servers.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/google-we-can-ban-servers-on-fiber-without-violating-net-neutrality/
I read some old testament. Brilliant stuff in there. Slavery is OK, as is polygamy, genocide is great, especially where children are slaughtered. If you capture a woman in a battle you can shave her head and let her grieve for a month before you start banging her. But homosexuality? Verrrrrry bad. Much like counting to 5, it's "right out!" ;) Of course, none of these criticisms would stick if Christians just dropped the old testament, but it's got a few bits in it that they like (e.g. homosexuality is evil) so it has to be kept around for now I guess.
That used to be my critique of christianity as well. But then I read more of the new testament, specifically, the stuff about Jesus. It turns out, that the mainstream religious *context* of Jesus's life, is absolutely critical to understanding his story (or at least, at this point in my life, that is what I have come to believe). The need to carry around a large amount of historical context to understand the story of Jesus, is why I believe the humans who chose the modern christian canon, made it so heavily weighted (~80%?) with the 'old' testament.
Another example of obvious insanity you forgot to mention was routine genital mutilation. If you really want to understand christianity, I would start with a focused research on that topic, looking at the whole of how it is discussed in both the old and new testament. Then read on from there. At some point, you may, like I, return to the state of not feeling to need to look so deeply into dark ugliness of that book (all the things we've mentioned here and more). But you probably will never again look at christianity and imagine that it 'soft-sold' the reality of human behavior. You are welcome to blame all that ugly human behavior on religion and christianity itself, but then, I would urge you to move on from religious texts to nature documentary videos.
Don't get me wrong - I love the US. But they tend to think that democracy and capitalism are one and the same and that's not true.
This, and your first paragraph, I absolutely agree with. but...
People don't exist to serve artificial constructs like corporations. People exist to help serve and better the human race
Here you have begun to project your desires of how you wish other people thought. People exist because we are biological organisms in this living universe. Or people don't exist because their would-be parents lived in a region of the living universe that wasn't able to support their successful breeding.
Candidly, I think the world is a more violent, aggressive and dangerous place to live in today than it has been in the past.
Really? I'm sure it depends on your geographic region, but here in the U.S. I remember *common* crime being more prevalent before the rise of pervasive mobile phones. Unfortunately I also bear witness to the increase in truly sinister new-age crime enabled by technology compounding historic human nature of spying and coercion.
That being said, it's still better than anything coming out of the cultural toilet that is the Middle East, China and Russia.
Hmm... I wish I could point to a lot of culture from those places that I like. I admit I tend to imagine that the free speech rhetoric I've been conditioned with has led to better rock music, movies, video games, and other art. But I still have hopes that in the not too distant future the cultural walls will disolve and the billions of people in those places will start producing more art and entertainment that I like. Unfortunately I think there are some large corporations that want to keep a lid on the new-age of de-scarcified art enabled by the internet and digital reproduction. Hopefully we'll see them crumble in the long term.
Collecting unanalyzed data is a waste of time and effort. Period.
It is much, much worse than that. Collecting unalyzed data that, in more nefarious hands, can be used for extortion and political manipulation, in part because it was collected en-masse, is a criminal violation of spirit of the 4th ammendment to the U.S. constitution, if not the interpretable letter of it.
Not only that, but if in order to collect it, you had weaken the security systems used by the masses for their communications, you are basically making all those systems easier to attack for everyone. This is what has happened, both directly with things like the $10M to RSA, and indirectly, just by having a quid-pro-quo where all the tech companies are blissfully happy to not invest in real security for their users, because the more influential government overlords are totally cool with it. They leak the vulnerabilities they discover that they want fixed, and enjoy a massive trove of vulnerabilities they keep for themselves (and unknown numbers of others clever enough to discover them as well)
Snowden exists and is still alive, while the Jesus of the Christian Bible is a myth.
Really? I label myself a christian, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that both Snowden and Jesus, have mythical qualities. Both Snowden and Jesus are people whose lives I have but the faintest glimmer of vision into. There is vastly more that I don't know about them, their actions, and the context of their actions, than what I do know.
Crucifixion was a horribly real and painful way to die.
Do you really meet many people who dispute statements of yours like that? If not, why do you make them?
Snowden tells us about dire events that are happening now, the Christian Bible has vague prophesies.
I know I've been taught to ignore people like you, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. Please realize that just about any old book you pick up, by the mere fact of its existence, is likely to have some useful lesson to teach about your human life, amongst society. If you'd prefer to read books other than 'the' Christian Bible (as if there were just one, check out the copyright restrictions on the NIV edition if you want to amuse yourself someday), that's your prerogative. If you've already read an edition of the christian bible, and that is your analysis, then I think you weren't actually seeking any wisdom. I'll go ahead and be the christian that states out loud and bursts your bubble- "no, any christian that told you that the bible was some kind of future prediction user manual for your life was lying to you. It's not like you say to yourself, I wonder whats going to happen to me a week from friday, well, lets turn to page 42 and see what it is". It's a little more complex, subtle, nuanced, and yeah, self-contradictory than that.
Jesus guys, come down a bit please. WTF would he be tortured? WTF would his siblings be bothered other than being harder for them to get security clearances?
Coincidentally enough, the answer to your question should be 'bloody obvious on this day, particularly with the first word you chose to use. Even for the non-believer, Jesus was a good reminder about modes of government intimidation. The authorities and masses couldn't get Jesus to un-say what he had already said. But they sure could terrorize the populace into preventing anyone from standing up to them again.
He put himself in the position he's in, no-one else did it to him. Him and Assange are the new generation of Mesiah's who are using a different means in order to grab fame and power. They are doing quite nicely thanks to their reporter mates.
James Russell Lowell -
"
Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth and falsehood,
For the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah,
Off'ring each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever
Twixt that darkness and that light.
Though the cause of evil prosper,
Yet 'tis truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold,
And upon the throne be wrong:
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
And behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow
Keeping watch above his own.
"
There are whistle blower laws that would have protected him if he'd played by the rules. He chose to make a martyr out of himself.
Right... he was supposed to count on this commander in chief's attitude toward whistleblower laws to protect him and those he loved-???
http://www.policymic.com/articles/57017/obama-removes-promise-to-protect-whistleblowers-from-old-campaign-website
"
(previously on Obama's website): 'Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.'
While the connection between such blatant hypocrisy and its intentional "removal" from the internet remains speculative, the coincidence is too great to ignore. Moreover, it is hard not to recall George Orwell's 1984 and the Ministry of Truth's epic programs to rewrite history in an attempt to save face.
"
> Jesus Fucking Christ, this man is going to spend the rest of his life, in extreme, rational fear for his life, and the lives of anyone he has ever, or will ever love. Cut the man some fucking slack you asshole.
Hopefully you're wrong. Hopefully he'll be caught and no longer be in fear.
It sounds like you are OK with his being imprisoned and/or tortured and/or executed, and the same for anyone who was ever close to him, and perhaps another love-hop from there because authorities believe it makes the crucifixion more effective?
Snowden appears to have done the right thing, for the right reasons. He served our best interests.
I appreciate what Snowden is saying, but perhaps fewer narcissistic platitudes and more documents on the front pages? Snowden isn't Jesus, the more he toots "It's not about me", the more it becomes about him
Jesus Fucking Christ, this man is going to spend the rest of his life, in extreme, rational fear for his life, and the lives of anyone he has ever, or will ever love. Cut the man some fucking slack you asshole.