Your statement is in essence a defense of Snowden's character.
Only to someone so hyper-sensitive that anything not derogatory must be supportive. In other words someone with such a massive hate-on for Snowden that he can't see the world in any other terms besides pro-Snowden and anti-Snowden.
Sorry, but that is nonsense. You touched on the question of character (shall I quote you again?), I addressed the question of his character.
No need to, I'll do it for you:
According to the article, the interview was conducted anonymously through a third party before Snowden publicly revealed himself.
I won't speculate on your motives for making such easily disproven claim about Snowden's character.
I said nothing one way or the other about Snowden's character. The only, even unasked, question was why the OP lied. Your responses suggest that he lied because he thinks Snowden sucks and therefore lying about people you think suck is fine.
While all the "don't be evil" responses are cathartic and fun, the real issue here is that you can't simultaneously give someone access to data and prevent them from having access to the data. You can make it more difficult to access the data but the price is that it is more difficult to access the data. You can't read minds so intent is not something you can reliably build into the system.
Snowden to newspaper: I took contractor job to gather evidence
What does that have to do the singular point of the post you are responding too? In what way does Snowden deliberately looking for evidence of wrong-doing in any way have anything to do with when he gave the interview in question?
In all likelihood his "objective opinion" is one that he's been paid to have by the Obama administration.
No, I do not think so. The user-id has a long history of posts on multiple topics. It is unlikely that someone would have put in that much effort for an astro-turfer. If they had put in that much effort, then that would not fit with the exceptional lack of finesse of his responses - a smear campaign would be a lot more subtle.
Apparently you believe Snowden is a saint, no matter what.
Have I said that anywhere in this thread? No, I have not. I have not even hinted at my opinion of him. All I have said is that you keep making up scenarios and the only thing consistent from one scenario to another is that snowden sucks.
Correct, he choose to give up the life he had for his ideals, that was the sum total of my complaint with westlake's post. The rest of what you wrote, that's your own set of issues which are completely irrelevant to my criticism of westlake's post.
The paper must not have thought much about the credibility of their informant since they chose not to run the story until after Snowden made himself known to the public in Hong Kong.
Wow, its like your only objectively reality is that Snowden sucks.
First it was Snowden doing whatever he could to keep publicity on himself and when that theory went over like a lead balloon you trot out the exact opposite. Now it isn't Snowden's decision to hold off because he sucks, it's the newspaper's decision to hold off because he sucks.
The important part of coming up with an explanation is that it must include the fact that Snowden sucks, everything else is mutable...
Well, for one thing Snowden didn't provide any hard evidence and lacking a literal smoking gun intelligence agencies basically have carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want to do.
Pus the general who was in charge of the stuxnet development seems to have leaked this information over a year ago.
Odd that we've had this long of a discussion to get to this point, when that was the sum total of my complaint with westlake's post. The rest of what you wrote, that's your own set of issues which are completely irrelevant to my criticism of westlake's post.
Do I really need to point out to you that he is now a fugitive living in exile from his own country? That he has no contact with friends or relatives? That he has no job at all? How is it that you are unable to recognize these objective facts?
Wah-wah. I'm "impugning" the guy's judgment because it is objectively true that Snowden gave up the life he's had for his ideals. He's got the president of the US calling for his imprisonment. It doesn't matter if you agree with his ideals or not, he's scarified quite a bit for them.
The fact that westlake deliberately chose to ignore that straight-forward fact and instead take a not-so-subtle jab at the man's character with the term "begging" suggests that he really is having a problem separating his opinion from his ability to evaluate objective facts.
They certainly "cared" a lot about something, so much so that they were willing as a consensual group to murder a man. Shall we canonize them for their dedication to their beliefs?
You seem to have missed the key part of the sentence, the part where I wrote, "for the causes we give lip-service to" -- of course we shouldn't get worked up over silly things.
but how many people are actually willing to step up? As it turns out, very few.
Which is why guys like Snowden deserve an enormous amount of latitude. The relatively few among us who are willing to put their lives on the line for the causes we give lip-service too deserve our unwavering support.
At the very least, businesses will find loopholes in these laws. The most basic one is described in the summary: data is anonymized
What we need is a catchy term or phrase that rhymes with "anonymized" but means not-really-anonymous. If we can put a popular name to this fake anonymization that is the first step in rallying the political and consumer will to stop it.
If you want to own the data, you have to own the network - own the hardware, own the fiber, own the towers. Then it's yours.
We collectively own the airwaves. That is enough to contractually force the companies we lease them to to give up all claims of ownership of the data about us. All it takes are government representatives with enough balls.
That assumes anyone is wearing safety glasses in the first place - which is pretty unlikely in this situation. Since the IR is in the same beam-path as the visible light, it isn't inherently any more dangerous for the typical person.
Right... the US government is going to fuck over international relations with an entire continent just to provide media distraction for something only one step removed from what they want to blow over.
If they were really looking to distract the media they'd wag the dog somewhere completely unrelated to the NSA leaks, like invading Syria.
Slashdot Mirror
Your statement is in essence a defense of Snowden's character.
Only to someone so hyper-sensitive that anything not derogatory must be supportive. In other words someone with such a massive hate-on for Snowden that he can't see the world in any other terms besides pro-Snowden and anti-Snowden.
Sorry, but that is nonsense. You touched on the question of character (shall I quote you again?), I addressed the question of his character.
No need to, I'll do it for you:
According to the article, the interview was conducted anonymously through a third party before Snowden publicly revealed himself.
I won't speculate on your motives for making such easily disproven claim about Snowden's character.
I said nothing one way or the other about Snowden's character. The only, even unasked, question was why the OP lied. Your responses suggest that he lied because he thinks Snowden sucks and therefore lying about people you think suck is fine.
So to summarize - what you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with the post you responded to.
While all the "don't be evil" responses are cathartic and fun, the real issue here is that you can't simultaneously give someone access to data and prevent them from having access to the data. You can make it more difficult to access the data but the price is that it is more difficult to access the data. You can't read minds so intent is not something you can reliably build into the system.
Snowden to newspaper: I took contractor job to gather evidence
What does that have to do the singular point of the post you are responding too? In what way does Snowden deliberately looking for evidence of wrong-doing in any way have anything to do with when he gave the interview in question?
In all likelihood his "objective opinion" is one that he's been paid to have by the Obama administration.
No, I do not think so. The user-id has a long history of posts on multiple topics. It is unlikely that someone would have put in that much effort for an astro-turfer. If they had put in that much effort, then that would not fit with the exceptional lack of finesse of his responses - a smear campaign would be a lot more subtle.
Apparently you believe Snowden is a saint, no matter what.
Have I said that anywhere in this thread? No, I have not. I have not even hinted at my opinion of him. All I have said is that you keep making up scenarios and the only thing consistent from one scenario to another is that snowden sucks.
Snowden is a refugee by choice
Correct, he choose to give up the life he had for his ideals, that was the sum total of my complaint with westlake's post. The rest of what you wrote, that's your own set of issues which are completely irrelevant to my criticism of westlake's post.
I still assert that Snowden will try anything and everything possible to keep publicity on himself.
Of course you do, that's your reality - Snowden sucks, no matter what.
The paper must not have thought much about the credibility of their informant since they chose not to run the story until after Snowden made himself known to the public in Hong Kong.
Wow, its like your only objectively reality is that Snowden sucks.
First it was Snowden doing whatever he could to keep publicity on himself and when that theory went over like a lead balloon you trot out the exact opposite. Now it isn't Snowden's decision to hold off because he sucks, it's the newspaper's decision to hold off because he sucks.
The important part of coming up with an explanation is that it must include the fact that Snowden sucks, everything else is mutable...
Zip bombing the NSA - sounds like the title of a song that will get you locked up in prison if you tweet it.
Well, for one thing Snowden didn't provide any hard evidence and lacking a literal smoking gun intelligence agencies basically have carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want to do.
Pus the general who was in charge of the stuxnet development seems to have leaked this information over a year ago.
http://www.voanews.com/content/retired-general-target-of-stuxnet-leak-investigation/1690953.html
He is so desperate to stay in the news that I think he is resorted to parroting what was speculated in the news almost a year ago.
According to the article, the interview was conducted anonymously through a third party before Snowden publicly revealed himself.
I won't speculate on your motives for making such easily disproven claim about Snowden's character.
Oh I recognize that Snowden is a refugee.
Odd that we've had this long of a discussion to get to this point, when that was the sum total of my complaint with westlake's post. The rest of what you wrote, that's your own set of issues which are completely irrelevant to my criticism of westlake's post.
> What is this life that Snowden gave up?
Do I really need to point out to you that he is now a fugitive living in exile from his own country? That he has no contact with friends or relatives? That he has no job at all? How is it that you are unable to recognize these objective facts?
Wah-wah. I'm "impugning" the guy's judgment because it is objectively true that Snowden gave up the life he's had for his ideals. He's got the president of the US calling for his imprisonment. It doesn't matter if you agree with his ideals or not, he's scarified quite a bit for them.
The fact that westlake deliberately chose to ignore that straight-forward fact and instead take a not-so-subtle jab at the man's character with the term "begging" suggests that he really is having a problem separating his opinion from his ability to evaluate objective facts.
Yay for pedancy! If the FCC sells licenses to use the airwaves, then we collectively own them for any reasonable definition of ownership.
What I see is a guy begging to be taken in hand by any country who will have him. Not someone who is putting his life on the line for anyone.
Really? You must have a major hate-on for the guy to see his actions through such a partisan lens.
They certainly "cared" a lot about something, so much so that they were willing as a consensual group to murder a man. Shall we canonize them for their dedication to their beliefs?
You seem to have missed the key part of the sentence, the part where I wrote, "for the causes we give lip-service to" -- of course we shouldn't get worked up over silly things.
but how many people are actually willing to step up? As it turns out, very few.
Which is why guys like Snowden deserve an enormous amount of latitude. The relatively few among us who are willing to put their lives on the line for the causes we give lip-service too deserve our unwavering support.
At the very least, businesses will find loopholes in these laws. The most basic one is described in the summary: data is anonymized
What we need is a catchy term or phrase that rhymes with "anonymized" but means not-really-anonymous. If we can put a popular name to this fake anonymization that is the first step in rallying the political and consumer will to stop it.
If you want to own the data, you have to own the network - own the hardware, own the fiber, own the towers. Then it's yours.
We collectively own the airwaves. That is enough to contractually force the companies we lease them to to give up all claims of ownership of the data about us. All it takes are government representatives with enough balls.
That assumes anyone is wearing safety glasses in the first place - which is pretty unlikely in this situation. Since the IR is in the same beam-path as the visible light, it isn't inherently any more dangerous for the typical person.
It's one of the big errors that scifi movies have with lasers in space combat (the other error being that laser pulses move slow enough to be seen).
If you had asked me, I would have said that it was lasers makes pew-pew noises in space.
Right ... the US government is going to fuck over international relations with an entire continent just to provide media distraction for something only one step removed from what they want to blow over.
If they were really looking to distract the media they'd wag the dog somewhere completely unrelated to the NSA leaks, like invading Syria.