The IC is comprised almost entirely of hard liners, and they hate Snowden. Vehemently. He's viewed as a traitor, like a family member airing dirty laundry in public. They will cite potential or actual damage as a rationale for why his actions were wrong, and they probably believe that, but it doesn't matter to them whether those are outweighed by the public's need to know. Indeed, they're paid not to think about the public's need to know at all. The real sin is that he broke ranks and made them look bad, and that's why they hate him (because they are good people, don't you know*.)
Personally, I think the public's need-to-know was paramount, but I recognize that his actions were illegal and I think he could and should have used other avenues to raise his concerns, both for his own personal well being, and to better legitimize the disclosure. Assuming that he actually tried to raise his concerns with his superiors first, which is dubious, he could have kept going up the chain, presented information to sympathetic and cleared elected officials, filed a FOIA request, filed a lawsuit, etc. Instead, he went rogue.
On the one hand, I'm glad that the information is public, and I believe that the information becoming public was important, but on the other hand, I feel that the way it happened gave opponents too much ammunition to label him (correctly, in a literal sense) as a criminal. It's like Malcolm X vs MLK. Civil rights was important -- probably the most important domestic issue of the 20th century -- but working within the framework of the law was both more noble and more effective. Malcolm X may be a folk hero, but MLK brought about real change.
* Actually, many of them are good people, but they're in the weeds, focused on what is a relatively small picture. Like most of us, they don't spend a lot of time balancing mission success against external societal needs. That's not their job, and it shouldn't be. It's strictly a leadership problem.
You can't prosecute someone for possessing/using an authorized copy. You can sue them, but that costs more than you would collect, and in many cases you'd be trying to get blood from a turnip.
They don't. It's a huge problem (no pun intended). It's been one of the impetuses for "big data," but there hasn't been a single plot disrupted so far. Targeted surveillance is the only way to get effective intelligence. Mapping phone numbers and/or communications to specific phones, and from phones to individuals is far from trivial on a mass level, although it's usually possible with targeted efforts. Dragnets only work if you don't care who or what gets caught up in them.
Soo, you want to replace a democratically elected government because you disagree with the electorate? Because your individual vote didn't outweigh all of theirs? How is that better? That sounds worse to me.
Keep in mind, I'm on the side of strong civil liberties, but I don't think that can be accomplished through tyranny. If people know they're right, and they're dedicated to making change, and convince others, then change can happen. See the decriminalization of marijuana as one of the most recent examples. Or gay marriage. It may take a generation, or even two, but it happens. As Churchill said, America always does the right thing -- after trying everything else first.
This is more about expectations. It seems that you expect things to change quickly and decisively just because you see them a certain way. That expectation seems unreasonable to me, even if I agree with the way you see things. Maybe I will have to deal with intrusive government surveillance for the rest of my life, but prior generations have had to endure worse. I'll do what I can to change minds and votes, but I don't expect it to happen overnight. That's not how society works.
It doesn't really need to be that difficult -- just require a license, like flying a plane. Educate people on restricted airspaces, and that will resolve 99% of the problems. There will always be scofflaws, but most people are law abiding.
Not really. Anyone with sufficient skill and patience can cheaply replace their own battery, and manufacturers and third parties both offer that service if you'd rather not DIY. Whether it's worthwhile, of course, depends on how new your phone is, and the cost of an upgrade, but for many people in a 2 year contract, it's much cheaper to replace the battery, even through a service, than to upgrade or replace the phone.
You would need half the cycles to do the same amount of work, but how long would "the same amount of work" really happen though? I think manufacturers would probably add features that are prohibitively expensive from a power budget standpoint today. That's an easier and more distinguishing selling point for competition than battery life. I mean, a flip phone will go for many days without needing to be recharged, if that's someone's primary consideration.
The difference is that both genders have locker rooms. What if there were only locker rooms for girls, and boys just had to change anywhere they could? That's what this is.
I could have, but it's important to remember that things aren't written in stone, and that we can change its mission through public debate and the political process. Ostensibly, anyway.
The NSA is an offensive organization, not a defensive one. That's it's mission. There's a very good argument to make that it should be prioritizing defense over offense, especially given, say, the OPM EPIC hack, but that's not it's mission right now.
That's true for nation states, but not so much for jihadists. Generally speaking, jihadists don't have the budget, expertise, or organization to carry out effective disinformation, and their counterintel is spotty at best. (Hell, our own is spotty, at best.) That's perhaps one of the reasons the IC has such a hardon for the WoT -- it's a case of overwhelming dominance. At least technologically and economically. When we can't tap in technologically (such as when they're avoiding technology altogether), we can often bribe our way in.
While it's dubious that the IC has stopped any direct plots against the US, at least any of potential note, they're basically waging the entire WoT overseas themselves, from strategy, to targeting, to execution, in both senses of the word, with the DoD playing more of a supporting role.
Slashdot Mirror
The IC is comprised almost entirely of hard liners, and they hate Snowden. Vehemently. He's viewed as a traitor, like a family member airing dirty laundry in public. They will cite potential or actual damage as a rationale for why his actions were wrong, and they probably believe that, but it doesn't matter to them whether those are outweighed by the public's need to know. Indeed, they're paid not to think about the public's need to know at all. The real sin is that he broke ranks and made them look bad, and that's why they hate him (because they are good people, don't you know*.)
Personally, I think the public's need-to-know was paramount, but I recognize that his actions were illegal and I think he could and should have used other avenues to raise his concerns, both for his own personal well being, and to better legitimize the disclosure. Assuming that he actually tried to raise his concerns with his superiors first, which is dubious, he could have kept going up the chain, presented information to sympathetic and cleared elected officials, filed a FOIA request, filed a lawsuit, etc. Instead, he went rogue.
On the one hand, I'm glad that the information is public, and I believe that the information becoming public was important, but on the other hand, I feel that the way it happened gave opponents too much ammunition to label him (correctly, in a literal sense) as a criminal. It's like Malcolm X vs MLK. Civil rights was important -- probably the most important domestic issue of the 20th century -- but working within the framework of the law was both more noble and more effective. Malcolm X may be a folk hero, but MLK brought about real change.
* Actually, many of them are good people, but they're in the weeds, focused on what is a relatively small picture. Like most of us, they don't spend a lot of time balancing mission success against external societal needs. That's not their job, and it shouldn't be. It's strictly a leadership problem.
A "Sophie's Choice," if ever there was one.
That should be irrelevant. End-to-end encryption should be the default.
Spoiler alert: Kevin Bacon already has access to everything.
You can't prosecute someone for possessing/using an authorized copy. You can sue them, but that costs more than you would collect, and in many cases you'd be trying to get blood from a turnip.
They're supposed to check all IDs, but yeah. Security theater.
It's actually much easier.
They don't. It's a huge problem (no pun intended). It's been one of the impetuses for "big data," but there hasn't been a single plot disrupted so far. Targeted surveillance is the only way to get effective intelligence. Mapping phone numbers and/or communications to specific phones, and from phones to individuals is far from trivial on a mass level, although it's usually possible with targeted efforts. Dragnets only work if you don't care who or what gets caught up in them.
Soo, you want to replace a democratically elected government because you disagree with the electorate? Because your individual vote didn't outweigh all of theirs? How is that better? That sounds worse to me.
Keep in mind, I'm on the side of strong civil liberties, but I don't think that can be accomplished through tyranny. If people know they're right, and they're dedicated to making change, and convince others, then change can happen. See the decriminalization of marijuana as one of the most recent examples. Or gay marriage. It may take a generation, or even two, but it happens. As Churchill said, America always does the right thing -- after trying everything else first.
This is more about expectations. It seems that you expect things to change quickly and decisively just because you see them a certain way. That expectation seems unreasonable to me, even if I agree with the way you see things. Maybe I will have to deal with intrusive government surveillance for the rest of my life, but prior generations have had to endure worse. I'll do what I can to change minds and votes, but I don't expect it to happen overnight. That's not how society works.
Right? Same thing goes for allowing private citizens to drive. Only truck drivers and taxis should be on the road. Freedom is so anti-American.
I agree.
It doesn't really need to be that difficult -- just require a license, like flying a plane. Educate people on restricted airspaces, and that will resolve 99% of the problems. There will always be scofflaws, but most people are law abiding.
Spending money for making sure you can protect yourself from Muslims is never "wasted"
I beg to differ...
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
If so, I hope they use a much softer material. :(
The heavier the phone, the easier it is to break.
Did you mean "the lighter the phone," because if not, I've got a steel phone that begs to differ.
Not really. Anyone with sufficient skill and patience can cheaply replace their own battery, and manufacturers and third parties both offer that service if you'd rather not DIY. Whether it's worthwhile, of course, depends on how new your phone is, and the cost of an upgrade, but for many people in a 2 year contract, it's much cheaper to replace the battery, even through a service, than to upgrade or replace the phone.
You would need half the cycles to do the same amount of work, but how long would "the same amount of work" really happen though? I think manufacturers would probably add features that are prohibitively expensive from a power budget standpoint today. That's an easier and more distinguishing selling point for competition than battery life. I mean, a flip phone will go for many days without needing to be recharged, if that's someone's primary consideration.
Right, just like a chalkBOARD, a chessBOARD, and a leaderBOARD. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take my keyBOARD and go home.
The difference is that both genders have locker rooms. What if there were only locker rooms for girls, and boys just had to change anywhere they could? That's what this is.
That would be sarcastically.
Everybody writes shitty code. Not all code is as widely distributed as Adobe's.
I could have, but it's important to remember that things aren't written in stone, and that we can change its mission through public debate and the political process. Ostensibly, anyway.
The NSA is an offensive organization, not a defensive one. That's it's mission. There's a very good argument to make that it should be prioritizing defense over offense, especially given, say, the OPM EPIC hack, but that's not it's mission right now.
That's true for nation states, but not so much for jihadists. Generally speaking, jihadists don't have the budget, expertise, or organization to carry out effective disinformation, and their counterintel is spotty at best. (Hell, our own is spotty, at best.) That's perhaps one of the reasons the IC has such a hardon for the WoT -- it's a case of overwhelming dominance. At least technologically and economically. When we can't tap in technologically (such as when they're avoiding technology altogether), we can often bribe our way in.
While it's dubious that the IC has stopped any direct plots against the US, at least any of potential note, they're basically waging the entire WoT overseas themselves, from strategy, to targeting, to execution, in both senses of the word, with the DoD playing more of a supporting role.