Will the Russian equivalent of Snowden flee his country with files detailing the abuses this law allows, publish the information drawing the ire of the Russian government, and flee to the US for sanctuary? Also, would the US grant him asylum or use him in a trade for Snowden?
It's interesting to read the comments here wherein people equate the actions of the United States to those of Russia; I highly doubt that Snowden is going to mysteriously ingest polonium-210. Hell, if we really wanted him that badly all that was required was some realpolitik: "President Putin, we'll quietly acquiesce to your fait accompli in Crimea, all you have to do is put Mr. Snowden on the next flight to JFK......"
In that time period, the US government has grown itself into the largest and most expensive world empire in human history, with a military presence in some 200 foreign countries
You know that metric is total bullshit right? Are there half a dozen unarmed US service-members there at the behest of the local government to help train local forces? That country is now considered to have a "US military presence." It's kind of like the way that MADD counts "alcohol related" accidents to inflate fears of drunk driving. Sober driver hits a drunk pedestrian? That's an "alcohol related" accident. Sober driver with drunk passenger gets rear ended by someone who was texting? That's another "alcohol related" accident.
Remember, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
I asked you for one example and you changed the subject to how things work "in the trenches?"
We can talk about the "trenches" if you wish; in general, as I said before, the system will do everything it can to keep you out of jail. It's expensive to incarcerate people and the objective -- particularly with the first intervention -- is to return the offender to society as a productive citizen.
Of course, you had to play the poor downtrodden minority card, but did you read the news story I linked? That young man is poor and black and he got PROBATION for breaking and entering. This is Louisiana -- hardly a progressive blue state -- and B&E is a felony that's a lot more serious than possession of weed. The system tried to give him a second chance and he used it to commit murder.
Now, I'm not a "lock 'em all up and throw away the key" guy -- I'm glad the system gives people a second and even third chance -- it's just that I don't believe this bullshit about there being masses of people behind bars for weed. It's pure propaganda from the pro-legalization crowd. I've seen first hand how the criminal justice system works -- I was charged with a felony at 20, worked for eight years in a residential setting with youthful offenders, and my sister is a State Trooper -- and it does not work the way you think it does. It has its flaws -- too many to list -- but locking up peaceful pot smokers is not one of them.
In many parts of the country law enforcement turns a blind eye to weed. I used to live in New York, where possession of 25 grams or less is a violation with a maximum fine of $100. A speeding ticket in New York State will cost you more money than a pot ticket, assuming the officer even bothers to write the unlawful possession ticket; oftentimes he won't bother because it's not worth the paperwork. I spent much of my 20s smoking weed -- incidentally, time I wish I could get back now that I'm in my 30s -- all up and down the East Coast, not just in New York, and my worst encounter with law enforcement was the North Carolina State Trooper that took our stash and gave us a stern lecture. Of course, we weren't total idiots about it either; we never carried more than a few grams out in public, never toked behind the wheel, and did our utmost to blend into the background without drawing undue attention.
And if he had said, "It's none of your business." and refused to answer I would have respected him, even supported him if they had tried to hold him in contempt. I agree, the question should not have been asked, but lying under oath is not acceptable under any circumstance. Lesser people go to jail for it. His choice was to refuse to answer or tell the truth.
An oath is just that, a solemn promise, and if he's willing to break it in this context I think it's fair to wonder if he takes any of them seriously, including his Presidential oath.
how much of it do you think that she actually earned?
Plenty. Look at her behavior throughout this process. "Wiped? What, like with a cloth or something?"
Now, to be clear, I certainly hear what you're saying. The Clinton's have been aggressively targeted for decades but how much of that is their own fault? They regard themselves as above the law and act accordingly. Bill lied under oath for heaven's sake. Is that a line you would cross? I sure as hell wouldn't. They're basically Francis and Claire Underwood without the murders. That breeds a certain level of resentment among those that oppose them politically, so is it really a surprise that they've been aggressively targeted?
One point to consider: Barack Obama has faced a Congress at least as obstinate as the one that reigned in the 1990s and nobody has tried to impeach him, much less succeeded at it. There have been a few investigations into his administration but none that have touched on him (or Michele) personally. For all of his faults -- and he has many -- I don't think he has anything approaching Bill and Hillary's level of hubris.
If you want to see an example of America's two tiered justice system ask any dirt poor man in jail for pot possession why he didn't get diverted to drug treatment like a pop star or even an attorney's son.
Got a citation for this claim? I know it's repeated often, but in the real world the system will go to ridiculous lengths to keep people out of jail. The nice young men that committed this particularly heinous crime had already been arrested in 2012, for B&E, and they got PROBATION. Neither one came from money or received any special treatment in the 2012 case -- at least from what's been reported to date -- the system gave them a second chance and they graduated to murder.
That's just one example, which pops into my mind because it just happened. Point being, you don't go to jail for mere possession of weed, even in the strict States. I challenge you to find one person that's behind bars for simple possession, without other factors at play, like an existing criminal record or the commission of other crimes while they possessed weed.
His billions laugh at you, while winking at the "average citizen".
All you need to know about Trump's business savvy: If he had taken his inheritance and invested it in a simple index fund he would be a richer man today than he currently is.
and most of us aren't paranoid enough to assume it was the men in black helicopters and not just some random theif.
The point is that the people who do have something to hide are apt to be that paranoid, so this attack vector isn't as useful as it might seem. Then again, I suppose that many criminals are idiots, and I could see some of them being stupid enough to enter a passphrase even if the device was handed back to them by the detective running their case. Hell, they'd probably unlock it on their way out of the station to text their buddies about how they beat the system. That's pretty low hanging fruit though.
Personally, I have little worth hiding, but I would not key a FDE passphrase into any device that I had reason to believe was no longer trustworthy. At the very least a lost and found device is getting a full reset and ROM reload. It's the same approach to dealing with malware; it never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise smart IT folks think they can "clean" a compromised system. There is no "cleaning" a compromised system, you blow it away and rebuild it. Anything short of this invites disaster and should it strike you deserve what you get.
That assumes you can get the user's device from them without their knowledge. Such an attack is feasible on desktops, and many laptops, but phones are the one electronic device even layman carry with them EVERYWHERE. When was the last time your phone was out of your immediate sight and direct control?
when the U.S. government illegally invalidated his passport and stranded him in Russia.
"Illegally" invalidated his passport? Do you have a United States Passport? I do, page 5, "This passport is the property of the United States. It must be surrendered upon demand made by an authorized representative of the United States Government. This is in line with SCOTUS precedent, incidentally, and only a fool would believe it's the obligation of any Government to make it easier for you to flee from prosecution.
I would argue against the notion that the pardon power is flawed. It's a final check on potentially abusive processes. It also allows pardons that are controversial at the time but sorely necessary for long term national healing, e.g., Nixon, Robert E. Lee, etc.
Your outage would be more impressive if you had realized that I was discussing Snowden, not Manning.
I would not accuse Manning of being motivated by a desire for the limelight; he sought no public recognition and was only outed by someone that he foolishly confided in. If you're going to commit a Federal felony you should probably have the discipline to keep your mouth shut. I think that he was used by all sides -- Assange certainly did him no favors; there's another glory seeking asshole that needs the affirmation of the masses -- and I would not put him in the same category as I place Snowden.
It can't go against the "Rule of Law" when he is expressly granted that power by our most supreme law. There is no law in the United States that trumps the Federal Constitution. That document gives him the power to pardon Federal offenses. It does not -- as people erroneously believe -- give him the power to pardon State offenses. He could give Snowden a full pardon but Snowden could just as easily find himself charged on the State level for any number of crimes.
The American separation of powers doesn't work the way you seem to think it does either. The Executive is responsible for initiating criminal prosecutions and it has some discretion in how it exercises this power. It's true that in other countries -- Civil Law jurisdictions -- an Independent Judiciary both brings charges, prosecutes, and adjudicates them, but that's not how it works here. The Executive brings charges and prosecutes them before the Judiciary which adjudicates.
He exposed programs and technologies that provided real foreign intelligence and were no threat to American citizens.
That's because he doesn't view himself as an American citizen. He is on the record as saying that he's a "Citizen of the World," whatever that means. I rather liked Robert Gates assessment of him, "He said the government has built an institution of oversight over intelligence-gathering for the past 40 years, and there are avenues for people to pursue with the authorities if they believe a law has been broken. Gates said for Snowden to make public his allegations instead “is an extraordinary act of hubris.”
Hubris indeed; a 29 year old decided that he knew better than the hundreds of elected officials that we the people appointed to make these sorts of decisions on our behalf. Nobody elected him or entrusted him with this sort of power, he just took it for himself. Then, as if that wasn't enough, he leaks EVERYTHING, to foreign media. At least Ellsberg leaked to a reputable American media outlet that takes pains to scrub information that would endanger lives. Snowden's media buddies just dumped everything out there without any consideration whatsoever of the consequences.
Then, the final insult, he runs away to a country that stands diametrically opposed to every human right he claims to champion. This happens AFTER he makes himself the story, by outing himself, rather than at least trying to remain anonymous, as Deep Throat did. It speaks to a personality that craves the affirmation of the public spotlight, which brings me back to Secretary Gates' comment about hubris.
The real question is why do they even have the power to arbitrarily circumvent the law at all.
It's a power granted to the President by the United States Constitution. How does the exercising of this power represent the "circumventing" of the law when our most supreme law specifically grants him this power?
If you don't think he should have that power, well, that's an argument, but removing it from him is no simple task. Personally, I would question the wisdom of such an attempt, as would many others.....
Oh, I don't worry about my personal safety much at all. For one thing, the vast majority of murders are criminal on criminal. I'm not a criminal, but a "citizen" (to borrow from the parlance of The Wire), and "citizens" that get killed are most typically killed by friends or loved ones, e.g., domestic violence.
That's not to say it can't happen -- it obviously does -- but it's rare enough that I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I traveled all over the Western World and encountered far scarier places than New Orleans. If the worst does one day happen, well, c'est la vie. At least I didn't live in fear.:)
For example, if you get a speeding ticket in New Orleans, it is ALWAYS advantageous to show up to set a court date, and not pay automatically even IF you are guilty as hell.
They are only interested in the revenue
Emphasis mine. I moved here about six months ago; the local expression is, "It's easier to get away with murder than a parking ticket in New Orleans."
Sadly, if you look at the murder solve rate, that's not an inaccurate statement. It really is all about the all mighty dollar.
Imagine the crushing disappointment of the alien anthropologists when the signals are successfully decoded.
I think there was even a Star Trek: The Next Generation, where an alien scientist learns that the Federation monitored her civilization's entertainment broadcasts prior to first contact, and the response is predictable horror. So it is here; American Idol may be the first impression we make on an alien civilian. $deity help us....
how can South Korea be expected to be a signatory to a North Atlantic treaty?
Geography wasn't the point that I was making. The point I was making -- perhaps I should have stated it more clearly -- was that there are varying degrees of "alliance" with the United States of America, defined by law, treaty, and custom. South Korea is not in a category that would let them anywhere near Presidential communications -- not even the Five Eyes get that -- so the point that they're an "ally" is rather moot in this instance.
They're not a Five Eyes country or even a NATO member, which means there are serious limits to how far our trust extends, and what kinds of technologies we share.
In the olden days of/., 'hack [catb.org]' would have been more about technical skill and an inquisitive attitude, rather than legality or authorization. Even with the later, incorrect usage of hacking to mean cracking, I wouldn't say that "doing stuff without a permission" is synonymous with "hacking".
It may not be synonymous for the/. community but it almost certainly is for John Q. Public. Language evolves over time; even the Google definition for "hack" (which I couldn't directly link, hence thefreedictionary) includes, "use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system."
Slashdot Mirror
Will the Russian equivalent of Snowden flee his country with files detailing the abuses this law allows, publish the information drawing the ire of the Russian government, and flee to the US for sanctuary? Also, would the US grant him asylum or use him in a trade for Snowden?
Putin takes a slightly different approach to dealing with people who flee his grasp than Barack Obama does.
It's interesting to read the comments here wherein people equate the actions of the United States to those of Russia; I highly doubt that Snowden is going to mysteriously ingest polonium-210. Hell, if we really wanted him that badly all that was required was some realpolitik: "President Putin, we'll quietly acquiesce to your fait accompli in Crimea, all you have to do is put Mr. Snowden on the next flight to JFK......"
In that time period, the US government has grown itself into the largest and most expensive world empire in human history, with a military presence in some 200 foreign countries
You know that metric is total bullshit right? Are there half a dozen unarmed US service-members there at the behest of the local government to help train local forces? That country is now considered to have a "US military presence." It's kind of like the way that MADD counts "alcohol related" accidents to inflate fears of drunk driving. Sober driver hits a drunk pedestrian? That's an "alcohol related" accident. Sober driver with drunk passenger gets rear ended by someone who was texting? That's another "alcohol related" accident.
Remember, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
What makes you think that Russia is different from the USA? Just 'cause they have it doesn't mean you get it.
Whoooosh!
I asked you for one example and you changed the subject to how things work "in the trenches?"
We can talk about the "trenches" if you wish; in general, as I said before, the system will do everything it can to keep you out of jail. It's expensive to incarcerate people and the objective -- particularly with the first intervention -- is to return the offender to society as a productive citizen.
Of course, you had to play the poor downtrodden minority card, but did you read the news story I linked? That young man is poor and black and he got PROBATION for breaking and entering. This is Louisiana -- hardly a progressive blue state -- and B&E is a felony that's a lot more serious than possession of weed. The system tried to give him a second chance and he used it to commit murder.
Now, I'm not a "lock 'em all up and throw away the key" guy -- I'm glad the system gives people a second and even third chance -- it's just that I don't believe this bullshit about there being masses of people behind bars for weed. It's pure propaganda from the pro-legalization crowd. I've seen first hand how the criminal justice system works -- I was charged with a felony at 20, worked for eight years in a residential setting with youthful offenders, and my sister is a State Trooper -- and it does not work the way you think it does. It has its flaws -- too many to list -- but locking up peaceful pot smokers is not one of them.
In many parts of the country law enforcement turns a blind eye to weed. I used to live in New York, where possession of 25 grams or less is a violation with a maximum fine of $100. A speeding ticket in New York State will cost you more money than a pot ticket, assuming the officer even bothers to write the unlawful possession ticket; oftentimes he won't bother because it's not worth the paperwork. I spent much of my 20s smoking weed -- incidentally, time I wish I could get back now that I'm in my 30s -- all up and down the East Coast, not just in New York, and my worst encounter with law enforcement was the North Carolina State Trooper that took our stash and gave us a stern lecture. Of course, we weren't total idiots about it either; we never carried more than a few grams out in public, never toked behind the wheel, and did our utmost to blend into the background without drawing undue attention.
And if he had said, "It's none of your business." and refused to answer I would have respected him, even supported him if they had tried to hold him in contempt. I agree, the question should not have been asked, but lying under oath is not acceptable under any circumstance. Lesser people go to jail for it. His choice was to refuse to answer or tell the truth. An oath is just that, a solemn promise, and if he's willing to break it in this context I think it's fair to wonder if he takes any of them seriously, including his Presidential oath.
how much of it do you think that she actually earned?
Plenty. Look at her behavior throughout this process. "Wiped? What, like with a cloth or something?"
Now, to be clear, I certainly hear what you're saying. The Clinton's have been aggressively targeted for decades but how much of that is their own fault? They regard themselves as above the law and act accordingly. Bill lied under oath for heaven's sake. Is that a line you would cross? I sure as hell wouldn't. They're basically Francis and Claire Underwood without the murders. That breeds a certain level of resentment among those that oppose them politically, so is it really a surprise that they've been aggressively targeted?
One point to consider: Barack Obama has faced a Congress at least as obstinate as the one that reigned in the 1990s and nobody has tried to impeach him, much less succeeded at it. There have been a few investigations into his administration but none that have touched on him (or Michele) personally. For all of his faults -- and he has many -- I don't think he has anything approaching Bill and Hillary's level of hubris.
If you want to see an example of America's two tiered justice system ask any dirt poor man in jail for pot possession why he didn't get diverted to drug treatment like a pop star or even an attorney's son.
Got a citation for this claim? I know it's repeated often, but in the real world the system will go to ridiculous lengths to keep people out of jail. The nice young men that committed this particularly heinous crime had already been arrested in 2012, for B&E, and they got PROBATION. Neither one came from money or received any special treatment in the 2012 case -- at least from what's been reported to date -- the system gave them a second chance and they graduated to murder.
That's just one example, which pops into my mind because it just happened. Point being, you don't go to jail for mere possession of weed, even in the strict States. I challenge you to find one person that's behind bars for simple possession, without other factors at play, like an existing criminal record or the commission of other crimes while they possessed weed.
Truer words have never been spoken. It would be funny if it related to a sitcom rather than the future of our country. :(
HRC is the second least popular major party candidate in history. Guess who #1 is? We've given new meaning to the joke about a douche and a turd.
His billions laugh at you, while winking at the "average citizen".
All you need to know about Trump's business savvy: If he had taken his inheritance and invested it in a simple index fund he would be a richer man today than he currently is.
and most of us aren't paranoid enough to assume it was the men in black helicopters and not just some random theif.
The point is that the people who do have something to hide are apt to be that paranoid, so this attack vector isn't as useful as it might seem. Then again, I suppose that many criminals are idiots, and I could see some of them being stupid enough to enter a passphrase even if the device was handed back to them by the detective running their case. Hell, they'd probably unlock it on their way out of the station to text their buddies about how they beat the system. That's pretty low hanging fruit though.
Personally, I have little worth hiding, but I would not key a FDE passphrase into any device that I had reason to believe was no longer trustworthy. At the very least a lost and found device is getting a full reset and ROM reload. It's the same approach to dealing with malware; it never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise smart IT folks think they can "clean" a compromised system. There is no "cleaning" a compromised system, you blow it away and rebuild it. Anything short of this invites disaster and should it strike you deserve what you get.
That assumes you can get the user's device from them without their knowledge. Such an attack is feasible on desktops, and many laptops, but phones are the one electronic device even layman carry with them EVERYWHERE. When was the last time your phone was out of your immediate sight and direct control?
Russians are very very hospital people and caring too.
Unless you're LGBT.
when the U.S. government illegally invalidated his passport and stranded him in Russia.
"Illegally" invalidated his passport? Do you have a United States Passport? I do, page 5, "This passport is the property of the United States. It must be surrendered upon demand made by an authorized representative of the United States Government. This is in line with SCOTUS precedent, incidentally, and only a fool would believe it's the obligation of any Government to make it easier for you to flee from prosecution.
I would argue against the notion that the pardon power is flawed. It's a final check on potentially abusive processes. It also allows pardons that are controversial at the time but sorely necessary for long term national healing, e.g., Nixon, Robert E. Lee, etc.
Your outage would be more impressive if you had realized that I was discussing Snowden, not Manning.
I would not accuse Manning of being motivated by a desire for the limelight; he sought no public recognition and was only outed by someone that he foolishly confided in. If you're going to commit a Federal felony you should probably have the discipline to keep your mouth shut. I think that he was used by all sides -- Assange certainly did him no favors; there's another glory seeking asshole that needs the affirmation of the masses -- and I would not put him in the same category as I place Snowden.
It can't go against the "Rule of Law" when he is expressly granted that power by our most supreme law. There is no law in the United States that trumps the Federal Constitution. That document gives him the power to pardon Federal offenses. It does not -- as people erroneously believe -- give him the power to pardon State offenses. He could give Snowden a full pardon but Snowden could just as easily find himself charged on the State level for any number of crimes.
The American separation of powers doesn't work the way you seem to think it does either. The Executive is responsible for initiating criminal prosecutions and it has some discretion in how it exercises this power. It's true that in other countries -- Civil Law jurisdictions -- an Independent Judiciary both brings charges, prosecutes, and adjudicates them, but that's not how it works here. The Executive brings charges and prosecutes them before the Judiciary which adjudicates.
He exposed programs and technologies that provided real foreign intelligence and were no threat to American citizens.
That's because he doesn't view himself as an American citizen. He is on the record as saying that he's a "Citizen of the World," whatever that means. I rather liked Robert Gates assessment of him, "He said the government has built an institution of oversight over intelligence-gathering for the past 40 years, and there are avenues for people to pursue with the authorities if they believe a law has been broken. Gates said for Snowden to make public his allegations instead “is an extraordinary act of hubris.”
Hubris indeed; a 29 year old decided that he knew better than the hundreds of elected officials that we the people appointed to make these sorts of decisions on our behalf. Nobody elected him or entrusted him with this sort of power, he just took it for himself. Then, as if that wasn't enough, he leaks EVERYTHING, to foreign media. At least Ellsberg leaked to a reputable American media outlet that takes pains to scrub information that would endanger lives. Snowden's media buddies just dumped everything out there without any consideration whatsoever of the consequences.
Then, the final insult, he runs away to a country that stands diametrically opposed to every human right he claims to champion. This happens AFTER he makes himself the story, by outing himself, rather than at least trying to remain anonymous, as Deep Throat did. It speaks to a personality that craves the affirmation of the public spotlight, which brings me back to Secretary Gates' comment about hubris.
The real question is why do they even have the power to arbitrarily circumvent the law at all.
It's a power granted to the President by the United States Constitution. How does the exercising of this power represent the "circumventing" of the law when our most supreme law specifically grants him this power?
If you don't think he should have that power, well, that's an argument, but removing it from him is no simple task. Personally, I would question the wisdom of such an attempt, as would many others.....
Oh, I don't worry about my personal safety much at all. For one thing, the vast majority of murders are criminal on criminal. I'm not a criminal, but a "citizen" (to borrow from the parlance of The Wire), and "citizens" that get killed are most typically killed by friends or loved ones, e.g., domestic violence.
That's not to say it can't happen -- it obviously does -- but it's rare enough that I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I traveled all over the Western World and encountered far scarier places than New Orleans. If the worst does one day happen, well, c'est la vie. At least I didn't live in fear. :)
For example, if you get a speeding ticket in New Orleans, it is ALWAYS advantageous to show up to set a court date, and not pay automatically even IF you are guilty as hell.
They are only interested in the revenue
Emphasis mine. I moved here about six months ago; the local expression is, "It's easier to get away with murder than a parking ticket in New Orleans."
Sadly, if you look at the murder solve rate, that's not an inaccurate statement. It really is all about the all mighty dollar.
Imagine the crushing disappointment of the alien anthropologists when the signals are successfully decoded. I think there was even a Star Trek: The Next Generation, where an alien scientist learns that the Federation monitored her civilization's entertainment broadcasts prior to first contact, and the response is predictable horror. So it is here; American Idol may be the first impression we make on an alien civilian. $deity help us....
Ever wonder what's under Trump's hair?
how can South Korea be expected to be a signatory to a North Atlantic treaty?
Geography wasn't the point that I was making. The point I was making -- perhaps I should have stated it more clearly -- was that there are varying degrees of "alliance" with the United States of America, defined by law, treaty, and custom. South Korea is not in a category that would let them anywhere near Presidential communications -- not even the Five Eyes get that -- so the point that they're an "ally" is rather moot in this instance.
South Korea is a Major non-NATO ally, a term with a specific legal meaning.
They're not a Five Eyes country or even a NATO member, which means there are serious limits to how far our trust extends, and what kinds of technologies we share.
In the olden days of /., 'hack [catb.org]' would have been more about technical skill and an inquisitive attitude, rather than legality or authorization. Even with the later, incorrect usage of hacking to mean cracking, I wouldn't say that "doing stuff without a permission" is synonymous with "hacking".
It may not be synonymous for the /. community but it almost certainly is for John Q. Public. Language evolves over time; even the Google definition for "hack" (which I couldn't directly link, hence thefreedictionary) includes, "use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system."