but the shining jewel of privacy activism is in no way a hypocrite for staying in a country that doesn't actually enforce privacy rights.
The country he stays in is 100% irrelevant. His goals are what is relevant.
As for spying on non-hostile countries, don't you understand that this is fucking America. We don't fight fair. Unlike the French, Russians, and Chinese we don't pretend to be fair.
If we want to claim that we're "the land of the free and the home of the brave," that we're exceptional, and that we're the best, we really should stop doing things just because the other guys are doing it, and maybe we should even start playing fair and stop taking immoral courses of action.
The law was wrong and irrelevant; it has nothing to do with morality. Any legal methods would have resulted in citizens not knowing what was going on, and the whole thing would have likely been swept under the rug.
Since when do other nations not engage in foreign intelligence gathering?
How is that relevant to what he said? And if America is supposed to be the best, then why aren't we striving to be better than the other countries, rather than using their actions as an excuse to do the same things they're doing? That seems rather pathetic.
Oh? And even if he fled to Russia, that does not make him a traitor.
b) released no data on Russia's operations
Maybe he doesn't want to anger every government in the world. Not releasing data on Russia != supporting them.
d) most of the information he has actually released has nothing to do with privacy rights for anybody (no government official has an actual right not to be spied on by other governments, but we spent about a week on Slashdot debating US and Australian spying on Indonesia, and Snowden's also released info on our operations in the Afpak theatre)
Privacy is always relevant, no matter what the law says. I don't see spying on our allies or non-hostile countries as a good thing, so I'm thankful for what he did.
e) Russia is a country that has no privacy rights for anybody.
Completely irrelevant to Snowden.
Looks like these people are on a smear campaign. Only government bootlickers would agree with them.
He went on the run probably because he doesn't want to be severely punished. Just like you might go on the run if someone threatens to shoot you for claiming that 1 + 1 = 2. The fact that he went on the run doesn't indicate that he did anything wrong.
Maybe because it wasn't the government that did anything wrong.
really? Has any building been attacked in your city since 9-11?
You could use the same reasoning to conclude we were perfectly safe before 9/11. And in the grand scheme of things, 9/11 was absolutely nothing; it is our reaction that caused us the most damage.
Unfortunately for you, it's not meaningless if it's true.
Unfortunately for you, it's not meaningless if it's true. The amount of religious fanaticism you're exuding is simply astounding. There, done.
so by denying kids that experience you are stunting them once they get out in the real world.
Perhaps if we didn't 'educate' them to use specific pieces of software, people wouldn't come out of high school not knowing how to use any software but what they used in the past.
And this is about freedom, not education.
So stop pretending that your personal product preferences are some kind of human rights issue
I'm not actually advocating any specific piece of software. I see it as a rights issue.
Kids no more need access to the kernel on an iPad than they need to know how to perform open-heart surgery.
The option needs to be there. Maybe they'll take advantage of the source code, or maybe they won't.
I don't really see why educational environments should promote products or software that imprison the user; that doesn't seem like a good value to me.
I don't want to give my information to either. And as someone already pointed out, any information in the hands of private companies will quickly be put into the hands of the government.
The children don't need protecting to begin with. You could sum that up as, "Freedom is more important than safety, even if that safety is real, which in this case, it isn't."
Well, the problem is that even with all the amendments, there will still come a time when the law needs to be interpreted - if it was all so crystal clear as to be self-evident in all cases, we wouldn't need judges in the first place.
It doesn't need to be 100% crystal clear in all cases (impossible) in order for it to be better than the mess we have now.
but you seem to think it's because teachers want to teach poorly.
No. I think many of them don't know how to teach, or have a flawed view of what education is. Most people seem to actually believe that rote memorization is a good thing, think the solution is more tests, or think that merely eliminating most of the testing would fix the problem.
Teaching to the test and rote memorization are not "doing the best with what is had." I'd say the real problem is that most people don't even understand what education is to begin with, including many teachers.
Not giving them so much damn leeway to decide what is and is not "reasonable." Of course, I think separation of powers is a good idea, but we need more than that. As you said, constitutional amendments may be necessary.
Oh, I'm completely aware that the government routinely violates the constitution, so don't call me ignorant.
We should ALWAYS be looking at anything coming in through the border.
As we're supposedly "the land of the free and the home of the brave," we should strive for freedom above all else. Stripping people of their rights just because they're at the border is not something "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would do.
Let's just stop inspecting cargo coming in on ships, amirite?
Unless you have a reason to suspect someone's doing something wrong, that is right. We should not be searching people like this.
And hey, why not give the government the power to ransack everyone's homes whenever they feel like it? I'm sure they'd catch some filthy criminals then, right? And that's what's important: Safety...
since you have made up some completely arbitrary and imaginary rule
You mean like the government did when it decided what is and is not 'reasonable'? No matter what route you take, it's going to be arbitrary, though not really imaginary.
I hope you enjoy your free bread, charity case.
I hope you enjoy your TSA, your NSA, your free speech zones, and your constitution-free zones, you cowardly piece of trash. I'm certainly not enjoying them. Why not move to North Korea already?
The separation of powers bit has failed time and time again. Security-happy freedom haters exist in all three branches and collude to take away the people's rights. This very problem is an example of that.
Slashdot Mirror
The constitution is not firmly on the side of government; it's just that the government often ignores it, and people let them do that.
but the shining jewel of privacy activism is in no way a hypocrite for staying in a country that doesn't actually enforce privacy rights.
The country he stays in is 100% irrelevant. His goals are what is relevant.
As for spying on non-hostile countries, don't you understand that this is fucking America. We don't fight fair. Unlike the French, Russians, and Chinese we don't pretend to be fair.
If we want to claim that we're "the land of the free and the home of the brave," that we're exceptional, and that we're the best, we really should stop doing things just because the other guys are doing it, and maybe we should even start playing fair and stop taking immoral courses of action.
The law was wrong and irrelevant; it has nothing to do with morality. Any legal methods would have resulted in citizens not knowing what was going on, and the whole thing would have likely been swept under the rug.
Since when do other nations not engage in foreign intelligence gathering?
How is that relevant to what he said? And if America is supposed to be the best, then why aren't we striving to be better than the other countries, rather than using their actions as an excuse to do the same things they're doing? That seems rather pathetic.
Exactly what I'd expect from the "land of the free and the home of the brave": cowardly pieces of trash that care about security more than freedom.
Vote for the side that is least treasonous
No. Vote for third parties. Voting for one of the two main parties isn't even an option.
(when he could have fled other countries)
Oh? And even if he fled to Russia, that does not make him a traitor.
b) released no data on Russia's operations
Maybe he doesn't want to anger every government in the world. Not releasing data on Russia != supporting them.
d) most of the information he has actually released has nothing to do with privacy rights for anybody (no government official has an actual right not to be spied on by other governments, but we spent about a week on Slashdot debating US and Australian spying on Indonesia, and Snowden's also released info on our operations in the Afpak theatre)
Privacy is always relevant, no matter what the law says. I don't see spying on our allies or non-hostile countries as a good thing, so I'm thankful for what he did.
e) Russia is a country that has no privacy rights for anybody.
Completely irrelevant to Snowden.
Looks like these people are on a smear campaign. Only government bootlickers would agree with them.
What Snowden did was not wrong at all. It would've been wrong to not take that course of action, I say.
He went on the run probably because he doesn't want to be severely punished. Just like you might go on the run if someone threatens to shoot you for claiming that 1 + 1 = 2. The fact that he went on the run doesn't indicate that he did anything wrong.
Maybe because it wasn't the government that did anything wrong.
Read the constitution, bootlicker.
really? Has any building been attacked in your city since 9-11?
You could use the same reasoning to conclude we were perfectly safe before 9/11. And in the grand scheme of things, 9/11 was absolutely nothing; it is our reaction that caused us the most damage.
These are most certainly not wars of defense.
Unfortunately for you, it's not meaningless if it's true.
Unfortunately for you, it's not meaningless if it's true. The amount of religious fanaticism you're exuding is simply astounding. There, done.
so by denying kids that experience you are stunting them once they get out in the real world.
Perhaps if we didn't 'educate' them to use specific pieces of software, people wouldn't come out of high school not knowing how to use any software but what they used in the past.
And this is about freedom, not education.
So stop pretending that your personal product preferences are some kind of human rights issue
I'm not actually advocating any specific piece of software. I see it as a rights issue.
Kids no more need access to the kernel on an iPad than they need to know how to perform open-heart surgery.
The option needs to be there. Maybe they'll take advantage of the source code, or maybe they won't.
I don't really see why educational environments should promote products or software that imprison the user; that doesn't seem like a good value to me.
That's the kind of religious fanaticism I'm talking about.
Anything can be said to be religious fanaticism, including your stupid opposition to what I'm saying. It's a meaningless insult.
But whatever. Continue letting kids get used to locked-down, DRM-infested garbage.
And? That does not justify infringing upon people's rights and discarding our values to stop them.
I don't want to give my information to either. And as someone already pointed out, any information in the hands of private companies will quickly be put into the hands of the government.
The children don't need protecting to begin with. You could sum that up as, "Freedom is more important than safety, even if that safety is real, which in this case, it isn't."
Well, no, I wouldn't agree with this.
Then freedom doesn't matter to you.
Well, the problem is that even with all the amendments, there will still come a time when the law needs to be interpreted - if it was all so crystal clear as to be self-evident in all cases, we wouldn't need judges in the first place.
It doesn't need to be 100% crystal clear in all cases (impossible) in order for it to be better than the mess we have now.
the response is always a resounding NO! from the professional readers of this site.
It is?
but you seem to think it's because teachers want to teach poorly.
No. I think many of them don't know how to teach, or have a flawed view of what education is. Most people seem to actually believe that rote memorization is a good thing, think the solution is more tests, or think that merely eliminating most of the testing would fix the problem.
It's doing the best with what is had.
Teaching to the test and rote memorization are not "doing the best with what is had." I'd say the real problem is that most people don't even understand what education is to begin with, including many teachers.
Not giving them so much damn leeway to decide what is and is not "reasonable." Of course, I think separation of powers is a good idea, but we need more than that. As you said, constitutional amendments may be necessary.
Schools are designed to severely punish everyone, not just the brightest.
got the proper parade permits
The fact that you even have to have a permit is part of the problem.
They always have decided.
Oh, I'm completely aware that the government routinely violates the constitution, so don't call me ignorant.
We should ALWAYS be looking at anything coming in through the border.
As we're supposedly "the land of the free and the home of the brave," we should strive for freedom above all else. Stripping people of their rights just because they're at the border is not something "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would do.
Let's just stop inspecting cargo coming in on ships, amirite?
Unless you have a reason to suspect someone's doing something wrong, that is right. We should not be searching people like this.
And hey, why not give the government the power to ransack everyone's homes whenever they feel like it? I'm sure they'd catch some filthy criminals then, right? And that's what's important: Safety...
since you have made up some completely arbitrary and imaginary rule
You mean like the government did when it decided what is and is not 'reasonable'? No matter what route you take, it's going to be arbitrary, though not really imaginary.
I hope you enjoy your free bread, charity case.
I hope you enjoy your TSA, your NSA, your free speech zones, and your constitution-free zones, you cowardly piece of trash. I'm certainly not enjoying them. Why not move to North Korea already?
The separation of powers bit has failed time and time again. Security-happy freedom haters exist in all three branches and collude to take away the people's rights. This very problem is an example of that.