This does not seem to be the usual story of government overreach.
It is. That data shouldn't be used for such purposes, and people shouldn't have facial recognition used on them merely because they want to go to another country.
I think he's talking about the principles to which 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' is supposed to aspire. You know, how the government's power is severely limited by the US constitution, and how the government only has the powers given to it by said constitution? Or do you think violating the constitution is not a big deal either?
What are the tangible benefits "freedom" and "privacy" give the community?
Why don't you ask the hundreds of millions of people throughout history that were abused and/or outright murdered by corrupt governments? Freedom and privacy are checks on the government's powers. Oh, and then there's the free market that allows you to live in such a prosperous society to begin with, the very society you're trying to undermine. Your problem is that you assume the people in the government are perfect angels who could never make mistakes or abuse their powers; anyone with even minuscule knowledge of history could trivially prove that wrong. And what's even more hypocritical is that you want safety. Safety from what? People who can't be trusted, apparently. Criminals. Terrorists. Why do you think that the people in the government can't be any of those?
If you really believed the nonsense that you wrote, you'd be in favor of suspending all restrictions upon the government. If that is the case, then just move to North Korea, trash; there, you'll have the government you quite openly admitted you want.
No, it isn't. Just because some part of the government has access to some data on someone does not mean that data should be shared freely and used for any purpose. Using it against everyone to make sure they aren't criminals is unacceptable.
Information technology, image recognition, automation, are only permissible for use by mobsters, etc.
Only uses of technology open to abuse or mass surveillance should be disallowed. Red light cameras, mass government public surveillance, NSA-style surveillance, facial recognition technology on drivers licenses or passports, etc. should all be forbidden.
Why? How does losing your privacynegatively affect you.
Privacy is a fundamental human need and is what protects us from government abuse. Hundreds of millions of people throughout history were abused and/or murdered by corrupt governments that would have just loved to have the capabilities our government has now. Our own government put Japanese people in internment camps, allowed slavery, had Jim Crow laws, spied on MLK, and did various other nasty rights-violating things. Yet, you seem to be saying that our government is 100% trustworthy, even though no government (even our own) throughout history was immune from corruption. History isn't on your side, you fool.
Giving them all these capabilities and all this information simply allows them to selectively abuse people who have angered the government; you're opening the door to oppression. This is the same reason why the NSA's mass surveillance is evil, though I suppose you have no problem with that, and since you basically asserted that the only kind of harm is physical, you're probably beyond hope.
While we're at it, why don't we let the government install surveillance equipment in every room of everyone's houses, despite the fact that it's a violation of the constitution. They swear they won't abuse such capabilities. After all, you already live in a glass house since privacy doesn't matter to you, right?
And not boo-hoo first world problems 'I have to sit in an hour long security line".
I assure you that the mass violation of the highest law of the land and people's fundamental rights is not a "first world problem."
Do you want to live in a free country? It seems not. Why don't you move to North Korea? I hear they have your same distaste for privacy.
By that standard police should never use radar guns as that is checking the speed on an "innocent" driver.
Such information is not identifying, and isn't on the same scale as automatic surveillance.
Using every possible database to find a criminal is a valid use of data and not an invasion.
No, it isn't valid. Not if it's easily subject corruption like this is, and not if that's not what they said they'd do with the data.
He gave the information to the government as a picture for a passport.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the police can do whatever they want with this. You're being very disturbing by saying that any information the government has can be used for absolutely anything, regardless of what they said they would do with the information and what is moral or not.
Just following orders is not the same as a person doing a 9 to 5 at a job making a living.
You're labeling people for being evil when all they're doing is their job.
"Just doing my job" is no excuse. What the fuck is wrong with you? If your job involves working for organizations violating the US constitution and people's fundamental liberties, you need to quit ASAP; if you don't, that shows you have flawed views about morality, and are anti-freedom.
That makes you intolerant.
I'm intolerant of many things. Murder, rape, and theft, to name a few. I'm intolerant of people violating the highest law of the land and people's fundamental liberties. Intolerant and proud.
Despite your non-beliefs to the contrary
You're like a religious fundamentalist who thinks that he knows what goes on in others' heads. It's you who is the attention whore. You're not courageous enough to do what Snowden did, so you bitch on Slashdot in order to get what little attention that will get you. Is that inaccurate? Probably. Stop telling other people what they think.
If we all decided to ignore laws we thought were morally wrong we'd have a game like Twisted Metal on the streets.
If we all decided to be barbers, society would go to hell. If we all decided to do X, society would go to hell. Great argument.
I say challenge the law in any peaceful way you see fit; just don't expect victory in some cases. If everyone was okay with murder and such, society would have problems far worse than people breaking laws. The scenario you describe is laughably unlikely, and does nothing to undermine the actions of those who try to stop governmental corruption.
Your perception on lying is interesting to. How do you know any of this material is credible?
I have no reason to think it isn't, given that what he has said thus far has been correct, how the government has reacted, and that it looks legitimate. That's all. If you have proof that it isn't, do share. Mindless speculation doesn't count as proof.
Everyone that knows a bit of history and thinks that the government is not made up of perfect angels who can do no wrong or make mistakes is a tinfoil hat wearer.
Good for you, now get off Snowden's nutsack and think for a few moments about what's being released and how credible it is.
I like how you change the topic every two seconds. As for being credible, I have no reason to believe that it isn't.
They're people who have a job to do and have been given instructions to do that job. Unfortunately their leaders are evil scumbags and that's where your venting should be focused.
"Just doing my job" is not, never was, and never will be an excuse for doing evil. The fact of the matter is, everyone is now aware what these organizations are doing, and if they had morals and principles, they would quit (and I'm being generous and assuming they weren't aware of what was happening before).
History is written by people who have publishers and usually sponsors, all of which have an agenda.
Yes, yes. But lying doesn't change reality.
and he's still wanted for espionage in this country.
This is a very expensive and inefficient way to solve the problem.
Yes. That is the point. All of this automated surveillance has gotten out of control, and allows the government to oppress people more efficiently than ever before. That is not a good thing; sometimes the government should not be inexpensive or effective.
The oversight never does any good, will be subverted eventually, and doesn't solve the fundamental problem: The data on innocents should not be collected to begin with.
What frustrates and upsets me is that before Snowden, I would have looked at this as a fluff piece about technology, with some mild nagging doubts about how it could be misused.
So I guess you just ignored the countless abuses of government power throughout history before Snowden leaked those documents?
Sorry but everyone on earth is a potential criminal. I don't care how many times my finger prints (they were taken for a background check) are compared because I have never committed a serious crime (I have a few speeding tickets).
Agreed. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. History confirms this.
Until SCOTUS rules on what is, or isn't constitutional then it's still the law.
An unconstitutional law.
So do something about it!
I'm doing as much as someone who isn't a charismatic leader of a giant movement can do: Not much, but everything you can think of.
Disgusting? strong term there and there's a lot of folks who probably work for the NSA thinking that they're doing the right thing. It's all what side of the argument you're on.
Yes, disgusting. Evil scumbags. If they think that violating the highest law of the land and people's fundamental rights are the right things to do, then that makes them even worse. Anyone still working for the NSA is utterly devoid of morals. This isn't up for debate.
History doesn't dictate facts?
History doesn't do anything. It's just a concept used to describe things that happened in the past. It's not as if history is some sort of living entity.
Even if people lie, that doesn't change reality. I'm speaking of these on a purely technical basis.
"Don't pass unjust laws" where were you when they were being passed?
Another change of topic?
and look into the mirror as to who put them there.
Except that I didn't put them there. I don't vote for One Party candidates. I also participate in protests, write to my 'representatives', and encourage others to do those things as well as vote for candidates that they actually like.
Not completely, and that's why I'm suggesting that we change the education system to encourage understanding. Make the assignments and tests reflect that. But you can't come to an intuitive understanding of something without doing so yourself; other people can only encourage you and set you on the right path.
Authoritarian garbage. How about, "Don't pass unjust laws." How does that quote provide any insight whatsoever? Will the authorities want to arrest you if they see you breaking the law? Probably. Does that make the law just? No. Is this related to what patriotism is? No.
It's perfectly legal for the government to spy on us.
No, it isn't; it's 100% unconstitutional.
Snowden on the other hand violated the espionage laws.
Even if he did, all that would mean is that the laws are wrong.
So why do we keep getting the attention whore in our faces all the time if he really wanted to get on with his life he'd shut the fuck up already.
Maybe reporters are eager to see what he has to say, given his position? Maybe he feels he can convince some people to come to his side in the face of an ever more corrupt government. Our media sure as hell isn't doing their job.
You seem to be assuming that anyone who has a message for others is an attention whore. Stop acting like a religious fundamentalist by telling others what they think. You're not Snowden, so you don't know his motivations, and neither do I. And frankly, it's fucking irrelevant. What matters are the NSA's disgusting activites. That sure doesn't stop people from trying to shift the topic away from the NSA's treasonous behavior to useless speculation about how Snowden is a traitor or a puppet.
History, again, will dictate if he was a patriot or a spy.
False dichotomy. It is not an either/or. You can be a patriot *and* a spy. Well, if you think that someone is a "spy" for leaking documents showing that the government violated the highest law of the land, people's individual liberties, and basis morality. If you think that qualifies as a spy, then I'm 100% okay with that kind of spy.
Furthermore, history doesn't dictate facts. I mean, you can try to hide facts, but that isn't the same as changing them. History can't dictate that 1 + 1 = 3.
For taking that course of action? I suppose so. But his course of action was not wrong, and thanks to that, we now have the details of what the government is doing and how it's doing it (or, for the more ignorant, that it was violating the constitution at all).
I'll give him credit for stealing a bunch of information and then publishing it, especially around the NSA's activities but after that it's all downhill from there.
Copying. Also, I'm not sure what you're expecting from him now. He did what he set out to do. Are you saying that if you do one amazing thing, you must do amazing things forever thereafter or "it's all downhill from there"?
That's the definition of a spy isn't it?
A spy for the people, I guess. How would you suggest that we reign in on an unstoppable government that violates the constitution in secret as it pleases if we can't even have someone leak some documents? Is being a "spy" automatically bad? I don't think so, and this all assumes he could even be called a "spy" at all.
Maybe old John Pollard [wikipedia.org] would like to be considered patriotic then?
The definition of patriotism you cited a few posts ago doesn't preclude him from being a patriot. It seems weird that this discussion of patriotism is happening again when you already agreed that Snowden's actions were patriotic (by citing such a definition, and admitting that you liked that he leaked the documents).
You've obviously never heard of an Attention Whore then?
I have, but I don't pretend to know what goes on in someone else's head like a religious fundamentalist ("In your heart, you know you're wrong."). I don't think that Snowden is an attention whore; just someone who pissed off the most powerful government in the world and ended up stuck in Russia thanks to that.
Nope, still. Besides, most people do a whole lot of nothing about government corruption, so even if he did just one thing, that would still put him far above the rest of us.
and anybody who believes the drivel after the initial doc release is being duped.
Slashdot Mirror
This does not seem to be the usual story of government overreach.
It is. That data shouldn't be used for such purposes, and people shouldn't have facial recognition used on them merely because they want to go to another country.
says who?
I think he's talking about the principles to which 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' is supposed to aspire. You know, how the government's power is severely limited by the US constitution, and how the government only has the powers given to it by said constitution? Or do you think violating the constitution is not a big deal either?
What are the tangible benefits "freedom" and "privacy" give the community?
Why don't you ask the hundreds of millions of people throughout history that were abused and/or outright murdered by corrupt governments? Freedom and privacy are checks on the government's powers. Oh, and then there's the free market that allows you to live in such a prosperous society to begin with, the very society you're trying to undermine. Your problem is that you assume the people in the government are perfect angels who could never make mistakes or abuse their powers; anyone with even minuscule knowledge of history could trivially prove that wrong. And what's even more hypocritical is that you want safety. Safety from what? People who can't be trusted, apparently. Criminals. Terrorists. Why do you think that the people in the government can't be any of those?
If you really believed the nonsense that you wrote, you'd be in favor of suspending all restrictions upon the government. If that is the case, then just move to North Korea, trash; there, you'll have the government you quite openly admitted you want.
No, it isn't. Just because some part of the government has access to some data on someone does not mean that data should be shared freely and used for any purpose. Using it against everyone to make sure they aren't criminals is unacceptable.
Information technology, image recognition, automation, are only permissible for use by mobsters, etc.
Only uses of technology open to abuse or mass surveillance should be disallowed. Red light cameras, mass government public surveillance, NSA-style surveillance, facial recognition technology on drivers licenses or passports, etc. should all be forbidden.
Why? How does losing your privacynegatively affect you.
Privacy is a fundamental human need and is what protects us from government abuse. Hundreds of millions of people throughout history were abused and/or murdered by corrupt governments that would have just loved to have the capabilities our government has now. Our own government put Japanese people in internment camps, allowed slavery, had Jim Crow laws, spied on MLK, and did various other nasty rights-violating things. Yet, you seem to be saying that our government is 100% trustworthy, even though no government (even our own) throughout history was immune from corruption. History isn't on your side, you fool.
Giving them all these capabilities and all this information simply allows them to selectively abuse people who have angered the government; you're opening the door to oppression. This is the same reason why the NSA's mass surveillance is evil, though I suppose you have no problem with that, and since you basically asserted that the only kind of harm is physical, you're probably beyond hope.
While we're at it, why don't we let the government install surveillance equipment in every room of everyone's houses, despite the fact that it's a violation of the constitution. They swear they won't abuse such capabilities. After all, you already live in a glass house since privacy doesn't matter to you, right?
And not boo-hoo first world problems 'I have to sit in an hour long security line".
I assure you that the mass violation of the highest law of the land and people's fundamental rights is not a "first world problem."
Do you want to live in a free country? It seems not. Why don't you move to North Korea? I hear they have your same distaste for privacy.
By that standard police should never use radar guns as that is checking the speed on an "innocent" driver.
Such information is not identifying, and isn't on the same scale as automatic surveillance.
Using every possible database to find a criminal is a valid use of data and not an invasion.
No, it isn't valid. Not if it's easily subject corruption like this is, and not if that's not what they said they'd do with the data.
He gave the information to the government as a picture for a passport.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the police can do whatever they want with this. You're being very disturbing by saying that any information the government has can be used for absolutely anything, regardless of what they said they would do with the information and what is moral or not.
There is no freedom to be anonymous.
I disagree 100%.
Just following orders is not the same as a person doing a 9 to 5 at a job making a living.
You're labeling people for being evil when all they're doing is their job.
"Just doing my job" is no excuse. What the fuck is wrong with you? If your job involves working for organizations violating the US constitution and people's fundamental liberties, you need to quit ASAP; if you don't, that shows you have flawed views about morality, and are anti-freedom.
That makes you intolerant.
I'm intolerant of many things. Murder, rape, and theft, to name a few. I'm intolerant of people violating the highest law of the land and people's fundamental liberties. Intolerant and proud.
Despite your non-beliefs to the contrary
You're like a religious fundamentalist who thinks that he knows what goes on in others' heads. It's you who is the attention whore. You're not courageous enough to do what Snowden did, so you bitch on Slashdot in order to get what little attention that will get you. Is that inaccurate? Probably. Stop telling other people what they think.
If we all decided to ignore laws we thought were morally wrong we'd have a game like Twisted Metal on the streets.
If we all decided to be barbers, society would go to hell. If we all decided to do X, society would go to hell. Great argument.
I say challenge the law in any peaceful way you see fit; just don't expect victory in some cases. If everyone was okay with murder and such, society would have problems far worse than people breaking laws. The scenario you describe is laughably unlikely, and does nothing to undermine the actions of those who try to stop governmental corruption.
Your perception on lying is interesting to. How do you know any of this material is credible?
I have no reason to think it isn't, given that what he has said thus far has been correct, how the government has reacted, and that it looks legitimate. That's all. If you have proof that it isn't, do share. Mindless speculation doesn't count as proof.
Everyone that knows a bit of history and thinks that the government is not made up of perfect angels who can do no wrong or make mistakes is a tinfoil hat wearer.
Still a law
Irrelevant.
Good for you, now get off Snowden's nutsack and think for a few moments about what's being released and how credible it is.
I like how you change the topic every two seconds. As for being credible, I have no reason to believe that it isn't.
They're people who have a job to do and have been given instructions to do that job. Unfortunately their leaders are evil scumbags and that's where your venting should be focused.
"Just doing my job" is not, never was, and never will be an excuse for doing evil. The fact of the matter is, everyone is now aware what these organizations are doing, and if they had morals and principles, they would quit (and I'm being generous and assuming they weren't aware of what was happening before).
History is written by people who have publishers and usually sponsors, all of which have an agenda.
Yes, yes. But lying doesn't change reality.
and he's still wanted for espionage in this country.
So what?
Fundamental freedoms are simply more important than safety. I would rather let many criminals get away than allow these privacy invasions to continue.
Conversely, if you have not been proven to be a criminal no one should suspect you.
Agreed. I wish that were the case.
We are not all born omniscient.
Omniscience is unnecessary. Even a short history lesson will reveal countless government abuses.
This is a very expensive and inefficient way to solve the problem.
Yes. That is the point. All of this automated surveillance has gotten out of control, and allows the government to oppress people more efficiently than ever before. That is not a good thing; sometimes the government should not be inexpensive or effective.
The oversight never does any good, will be subverted eventually, and doesn't solve the fundamental problem: The data on innocents should not be collected to begin with.
What frustrates and upsets me is that before Snowden, I would have looked at this as a fluff piece about technology, with some mild nagging doubts about how it could be misused.
So I guess you just ignored the countless abuses of government power throughout history before Snowden leaked those documents?
Sorry but everyone on earth is a potential criminal. I don't care how many times my finger prints (they were taken for a background check) are compared because I have never committed a serious crime (I have a few speeding tickets).
Agreed. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. History confirms this.
Abuses of facial recognition is a problem in and of itself.
Until SCOTUS rules on what is, or isn't constitutional then it's still the law.
An unconstitutional law.
So do something about it!
I'm doing as much as someone who isn't a charismatic leader of a giant movement can do: Not much, but everything you can think of.
Disgusting? strong term there and there's a lot of folks who probably work for the NSA thinking that they're doing the right thing. It's all what side of the argument you're on.
Yes, disgusting. Evil scumbags. If they think that violating the highest law of the land and people's fundamental rights are the right things to do, then that makes them even worse. Anyone still working for the NSA is utterly devoid of morals. This isn't up for debate.
History doesn't dictate facts?
History doesn't do anything. It's just a concept used to describe things that happened in the past. It's not as if history is some sort of living entity.
Even if people lie, that doesn't change reality. I'm speaking of these on a purely technical basis.
Looking for a stolen car?
Look for it yourself.
"Don't pass unjust laws" where were you when they were being passed?
Another change of topic?
and look into the mirror as to who put them there.
Except that I didn't put them there. I don't vote for One Party candidates. I also participate in protests, write to my 'representatives', and encourage others to do those things as well as vote for candidates that they actually like.
Not completely, and that's why I'm suggesting that we change the education system to encourage understanding. Make the assignments and tests reflect that. But you can't come to an intuitive understanding of something without doing so yourself; other people can only encourage you and set you on the right path.
Also, another option to avoid doing the time is to run away. Then you can do the crime and possibly avoid the time.
Authoritarian garbage. How about, "Don't pass unjust laws." How does that quote provide any insight whatsoever? Will the authorities want to arrest you if they see you breaking the law? Probably. Does that make the law just? No. Is this related to what patriotism is? No.
It's perfectly legal for the government to spy on us.
No, it isn't; it's 100% unconstitutional.
Snowden on the other hand violated the espionage laws.
Even if he did, all that would mean is that the laws are wrong.
So why do we keep getting the attention whore in our faces all the time if he really wanted to get on with his life he'd shut the fuck up already.
Maybe reporters are eager to see what he has to say, given his position? Maybe he feels he can convince some people to come to his side in the face of an ever more corrupt government. Our media sure as hell isn't doing their job.
You seem to be assuming that anyone who has a message for others is an attention whore. Stop acting like a religious fundamentalist by telling others what they think. You're not Snowden, so you don't know his motivations, and neither do I. And frankly, it's fucking irrelevant. What matters are the NSA's disgusting activites. That sure doesn't stop people from trying to shift the topic away from the NSA's treasonous behavior to useless speculation about how Snowden is a traitor or a puppet.
History, again, will dictate if he was a patriot or a spy.
False dichotomy. It is not an either/or. You can be a patriot *and* a spy. Well, if you think that someone is a "spy" for leaking documents showing that the government violated the highest law of the land, people's individual liberties, and basis morality. If you think that qualifies as a spy, then I'm 100% okay with that kind of spy.
Furthermore, history doesn't dictate facts. I mean, you can try to hide facts, but that isn't the same as changing them. History can't dictate that 1 + 1 = 3.
And he has nobody to blame but himself.
For taking that course of action? I suppose so. But his course of action was not wrong, and thanks to that, we now have the details of what the government is doing and how it's doing it (or, for the more ignorant, that it was violating the constitution at all).
I'll give him credit for stealing a bunch of information and then publishing it, especially around the NSA's activities but after that it's all downhill from there.
Copying. Also, I'm not sure what you're expecting from him now. He did what he set out to do. Are you saying that if you do one amazing thing, you must do amazing things forever thereafter or "it's all downhill from there"?
That's the definition of a spy isn't it?
A spy for the people, I guess. How would you suggest that we reign in on an unstoppable government that violates the constitution in secret as it pleases if we can't even have someone leak some documents? Is being a "spy" automatically bad? I don't think so, and this all assumes he could even be called a "spy" at all.
Maybe old John Pollard [wikipedia.org] would like to be considered patriotic then?
The definition of patriotism you cited a few posts ago doesn't preclude him from being a patriot. It seems weird that this discussion of patriotism is happening again when you already agreed that Snowden's actions were patriotic (by citing such a definition, and admitting that you liked that he leaked the documents).
You've obviously never heard of an Attention Whore then?
I have, but I don't pretend to know what goes on in someone else's head like a religious fundamentalist ("In your heart, you know you're wrong."). I don't think that Snowden is an attention whore; just someone who pissed off the most powerful government in the world and ended up stuck in Russia thanks to that.
Early on
Nope, still. Besides, most people do a whole lot of nothing about government corruption, so even if he did just one thing, that would still put him far above the rest of us.
and anybody who believes the drivel after the initial doc release is being duped.
Yeah, right.