Crackpots and paranoids and conspiracy theorists knew the government was listening to everything all of us do all the time.
They believed that the government was listening, they didn't know. Occasionally what they believe intersects with reality in some fashion for a period of time.
Snowden has stated that he took his job with the plan from the start to steal and leak classified information. To do that he would have to have lied to get his job, lied to get his security clearance, and lied to get access to the data. You only consider him "trustworthy" because you agree with his crimes, the ones that can actually be found in the law as opposed to the placards of activists.
While flying over the ice sheet, scientists over the past three decades have measured the depths of the canyon using a radar system that operates at frequencies transparent to radio waves—from around 50 megahertz to 500 megahertz. A pulse of energy is sent down to penetrate through the ice, bounce off the bedrock, and travel back to the radar system. (Also read: "'Shocking' Greenland Ice Melt: Global Warming or Just Heat Wave?")
By using the words "online identity", they can charge him with identity theft, and they'll have more of a chance of getting extradition from Russia.
Given the circumstances under which Snowden entered Russia, how on earth do you think that could possibly work?
Given the connections of Anatoly Kucherena, the Russian who was speaking on his behalf and assisting him, it seems unlikely that the dullest tools in the Russian government are looking out for him.
It sounds like he abused his privileges to confirm his suspicions, and then took a course of action. Which is the right approach, depending on the suspicions.
That isn't what Snowden says. Snowden said he planned to gather and expose secret information from the start - before he took the job.
Edward Snowden has admitted he deliberately went to work for the US intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton in order to harvest highly classified evidence of the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance programs that he hoped to expose
Among the volunteers are al Qaida fighters. Happy? Not everyone volunteering to fight in Syria against the government is al Qaida... which reminds me. The Taliban are becoming a global menace. So now both the Taliban and al Qaida are fighting in Syria.
The Iraqi military was removed from Kuwait by military force because it had illegally occupied and annexed Kuwait, not because of rumors about incubators. It is a red herring.
There is plenty of opposition to the Assad regime in the Arab and Muslim worlds to provide the funding for the opposition, along with plenty of volunteers to help in the fighting.
An article on 29 January reported allegations on the internet that the US Government had backed a plot to launch a chemicals weapons attack in Syria and blame it on the Assad regime.... We now accept that email was fabricated and acknowledge there is no truth in any suggestion that Britam or its directors were willing to consider taking part in such a plot, which may have led to an atrocity. We apologise to each of them and have agreed to pay substantial damages.
So, first a story about the army being ready to raid the country, and just now a cyber-attack originating from syria happens... How do we know it's not US electronic warfare machine fabricating a bening attack to foster popular support for the coming war? After all, false flags before wars are the norm and not the exception.
So your thinking is that it won't be the use of chemical weapons on a civilian population killing over a thousand people in violation of international treaties, and in the face of repeated warnings from the international community that have been openly stated that will rile people up? It will be some nuisance grade hacking of twitter and a newspaper? And, it has to be a "false flag" to boot? You need to get out more, that is utter nonsense.
As explanations on Slashdot I find that "false flags" are greatly overused. It often seems to be the preferred "go to" explanation for everything. The problem is, you have a hard time with meaningful discussions if everything is a "false flag."
If you really want to go down the "false flag" route, how do we know you aren't part of a disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting the US?
You have a great luxury in that the police and security services have been effective to date in keeping terrorism under control with a fairly regular series of arrests and convictions. That can change, just ask the Iraqis. They thought they had terrorism under control and now it may be spiraling out of control. At its height, there were probably tens of bombs going off daily around the country. Things are bad enough now they would like the US to come back.
Flying your jet into a building: Terrorism Blowing up yourself in a marketplace: Terrorism Leaking information about government crimes: Potentially espionage Google "where to buy a pressure cooker": Consumerism Picking your nose: Impolite
Next/. poll: Who are you most afraid of? -Terrorists -My government -The voices in my head -CowboyNeal
In essence that would be a self-negating poll. Many of the same people that would claim to be terrified of their government also cheer socialized medicine. Cognitive dissonance.
I would expect that the patrol routes for nuclear missile submarines might be considered something to keep quiet, along with encryption keys. Maybe one or two other things as well.
All Snowden and Manning did was tell the truth. We should be *very* careful about outlawing the truth in America.
There were reporters that knew the date of the Normandy invasion, D-Day, in World War 2. They didn't reveal it. If they had revealed it, that would have been "telling the truth." It also would have likely turned the invasion into a disaster, and possibly resulted in a different outcome to the war.
Great Britain was in danger of being starved into submission by the German U-Boats in World War 2. The U-Boat menace was brought under control because the Allies were able to break the Enigma code system and read German Navy communications. Some Germans suspected from time to time that their communications were compromised, but they were always mollified by the apparent strength of Enigma. When the truth was finally revealed in the 1970s, the Germans were stunned. Had that information been revealed during the war, it still would have been "the truth." But the revelation of that information during the war against the U-Boats would have enabled the Germans to take effective countermeasures quite easily since the ability of the Allies to decrypt Enigma codes always hung by a thread. If the German radio traffic with the U-Boats would have been unreadable, it is possible that the British Isles could have been starved into submission. That would have meant a much more difficult war than it already was, and possibly one with a different outcome.
You're right, America (and the UK) should be *very* careful about outlawing the truth. By the same token, great care needs to be taken regarding the handling of some types of truth, otherwise it may be your fleet on the bottom of the ocean in the future. Had war come with the Soviet Union in the 1970s to 1980s, that is probably where much of the US fleet would have ended up. John Walker and his spy ring gave the Soviet Union the means to read American naval codes. NATO would probably have been either forced to use nuclear weapons in Europe - which it was and is prepared to do, or surrender.
A man telling his wife or girlfriend that a pair of jeans make her butt look big is telling the truth too. Who is going to sign up for that? Improperly revealing national security secrets is far more dangerous than telling a wife or girlfriend her butt looks big in a pair of jeans. The feedback loop just tends to be longer, if you're lucky.
So you don't want to go out on a limb and agree that stopping mass murder by the thousands and tens of thousands of Iraqis by the government was a good thing?
Although violence from terrorism by al Qaida and affiliates has been flaring in Iraq, overall it is still much more peaceful than it was. Terrorism is a minor problem compared to Saddam.
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"Iraq, today, 10 years on from the war, from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, is not what the Iraqi people hoped for and expected. We hoped for an inclusive democracy, an Iraq that is at peace with itself and at peace with its neighbors," Salih said. "To be blunt, we are far from that."
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from.... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
Maybe you missed it, but the car is fictional, just like many of the reports of positive change coming from the Obama administration. At least the House is blocking the path over the cliff.
The Pioneer plaque showed the position of the Earth's solar system. It wasn't for human navigation on a moving space vessel. (Although in a sense the Earth is a moving space vessel.)
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt that is referring to radar frequencies which will penetrate the ice.
Crackpots and paranoids and conspiracy theorists knew the government was listening to everything all of us do all the time.
They believed that the government was listening, they didn't know. Occasionally what they believe intersects with reality in some fashion for a period of time.
Snowden has stated that he took his job with the plan from the start to steal and leak classified information. To do that he would have to have lied to get his job, lied to get his security clearance, and lied to get access to the data. You only consider him "trustworthy" because you agree with his crimes, the ones that can actually be found in the law as opposed to the placards of activists.
Giant Canyon Discovered Under Greenland Ice Sheet
While flying over the ice sheet, scientists over the past three decades have measured the depths of the canyon using a radar system that operates at frequencies transparent to radio waves—from around 50 megahertz to 500 megahertz. A pulse of energy is sent down to penetrate through the ice, bounce off the bedrock, and travel back to the radar system. (Also read: "'Shocking' Greenland Ice Melt: Global Warming or Just Heat Wave?")
'Grand Canyon' of Greenland Discovered Under Ice Sheet
By using the words "online identity", they can charge him with identity theft, and they'll have more of a chance of getting extradition from Russia.
Given the circumstances under which Snowden entered Russia, how on earth do you think that could possibly work?
Given the connections of Anatoly Kucherena, the Russian who was speaking on his behalf and assisting him, it seems unlikely that the dullest tools in the Russian government are looking out for him.
So on a scale of 1 to 10, the answer is "we can't even do math without sensationalizing it"? /facepalm
Apparently the idea of "exceptionally damaging" isn't one you're familiar with.
It sounds like he abused his privileges to confirm his suspicions, and then took a course of action. Which is the right approach, depending on the suspicions.
That isn't what Snowden says. Snowden said he planned to gather and expose secret information from the start - before he took the job.
Edward Snowden admits infiltrating contractor to harvest documents
Edward Snowden has admitted he deliberately went to work for the US intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton in order to harvest highly classified evidence of the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance programs that he hoped to expose
Snowden worked for the NSA. He repeatedly lied to get his security clearance, position, and access. I take it you consider that QED?
Among the volunteers are al Qaida fighters. Happy? Not everyone volunteering to fight in Syria against the government is al Qaida ... which reminds me. The Taliban are becoming a global menace. So now both the Taliban and al Qaida are fighting in Syria.
Pakistan Taliban arrive in Syria, and more are to come, CNN told
The Iraqi military was removed from Kuwait by military force because it had illegally occupied and annexed Kuwait, not because of rumors about incubators. It is a red herring.
There is plenty of opposition to the Assad regime in the Arab and Muslim worlds to provide the funding for the opposition, along with plenty of volunteers to help in the fighting.
I don't know what to believe anymore: http://www.globalresearch.ca/deleted-daily-mail-online-article-us-backed-plan-for-chemical-weapon-attack-in-syria-to-be-blamed-on-assad/5339178
The correct answer is that it is a forgery. So you shouldn't believe it at all.
Britam Defence, David Goulding and Philip Doughty
An article on 29 January reported allegations on the internet that the US Government had backed a plot to launch a chemicals weapons attack in Syria and blame it on the Assad regime. ... We now accept that email was fabricated and acknowledge there is no truth in any suggestion that Britam or its directors were willing to consider taking part in such a plot, which may have led to an atrocity.
We apologise to each of them and have agreed to pay substantial damages.
I believe you are referring to this. It was fabricated.
Putting your money on a "false flag" for something this cheesy is, quite frankly, a stupid bet.
So, first a story about the army being ready to raid the country, and just now a cyber-attack originating from syria happens... How do we know it's not US electronic warfare machine fabricating a bening attack to foster popular support for the coming war? After all, false flags before wars are the norm and not the exception.
So your thinking is that it won't be the use of chemical weapons on a civilian population killing over a thousand people in violation of international treaties, and in the face of repeated warnings from the international community that have been openly stated that will rile people up? It will be some nuisance grade hacking of twitter and a newspaper? And, it has to be a "false flag" to boot? You need to get out more, that is utter nonsense.
As explanations on Slashdot I find that "false flags" are greatly overused. It often seems to be the preferred "go to" explanation for everything. The problem is, you have a hard time with meaningful discussions if everything is a "false flag."
If you really want to go down the "false flag" route, how do we know you aren't part of a disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting the US?
I'm not sure you have a solid idea there.
Terrorists try changes after Snowden leaks, official says
Can you point to any major government that can't declare things secret? That is a power that won't be going away.
You have a great luxury in that the police and security services have been effective to date in keeping terrorism under control with a fairly regular series of arrests and convictions. That can change, just ask the Iraqis. They thought they had terrorism under control and now it may be spiraling out of control. At its height, there were probably tens of bombs going off daily around the country. Things are bad enough now they would like the US to come back.
Iraq seeks help from US amid growing violence
Here is a corrected list for you.
Flying your jet into a building: Terrorism
Blowing up yourself in a marketplace: Terrorism
Leaking information about government crimes: Potentially espionage
Google "where to buy a pressure cooker": Consumerism
Picking your nose: Impolite
Next /. poll:
Who are you most afraid of?
-Terrorists
-My government
-The voices in my head
-CowboyNeal
In essence that would be a self-negating poll. Many of the same people that would claim to be terrified of their government also cheer socialized medicine. Cognitive dissonance.
I would expect that the patrol routes for nuclear missile submarines might be considered something to keep quiet, along with encryption keys. Maybe one or two other things as well.
All Snowden and Manning did was tell the truth. We should be *very* careful about outlawing the truth in America.
There were reporters that knew the date of the Normandy invasion, D-Day, in World War 2. They didn't reveal it. If they had revealed it, that would have been "telling the truth." It also would have likely turned the invasion into a disaster, and possibly resulted in a different outcome to the war.
Great Britain was in danger of being starved into submission by the German U-Boats in World War 2. The U-Boat menace was brought under control because the Allies were able to break the Enigma code system and read German Navy communications. Some Germans suspected from time to time that their communications were compromised, but they were always mollified by the apparent strength of Enigma. When the truth was finally revealed in the 1970s, the Germans were stunned. Had that information been revealed during the war, it still would have been "the truth." But the revelation of that information during the war against the U-Boats would have enabled the Germans to take effective countermeasures quite easily since the ability of the Allies to decrypt Enigma codes always hung by a thread. If the German radio traffic with the U-Boats would have been unreadable, it is possible that the British Isles could have been starved into submission. That would have meant a much more difficult war than it already was, and possibly one with a different outcome.
You're right, America (and the UK) should be *very* careful about outlawing the truth. By the same token, great care needs to be taken regarding the handling of some types of truth, otherwise it may be your fleet on the bottom of the ocean in the future. Had war come with the Soviet Union in the 1970s to 1980s, that is probably where much of the US fleet would have ended up. John Walker and his spy ring gave the Soviet Union the means to read American naval codes. NATO would probably have been either forced to use nuclear weapons in Europe - which it was and is prepared to do, or surrender.
A man telling his wife or girlfriend that a pair of jeans make her butt look big is telling the truth too. Who is going to sign up for that? Improperly revealing national security secrets is far more dangerous than telling a wife or girlfriend her butt looks big in a pair of jeans. The feedback loop just tends to be longer, if you're lucky.
Iran Warns U.S. Against Syria Intervention, Revolutionary Guard General Predicts 'Severe Consequences'
Syria crisis: UK and US move closer to intervention
How is the Official Secrets Act not adequate to cover this?
So you don't want to go out on a limb and agree that stopping mass murder by the thousands and tens of thousands of Iraqis by the government was a good thing?
Although violence from terrorism by al Qaida and affiliates has been flaring in Iraq, overall it is still much more peaceful than it was. Terrorism is a minor problem compared to Saddam.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam, How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War?
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"Iraq, today, 10 years on from the war, from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, is not what the Iraqi people hoped for and expected. We hoped for an inclusive democracy, an Iraq that is at peace with itself and at peace with its neighbors," Salih said. "To be blunt, we are far from that."
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
You might find this interesting: Iraq seeks help from US amid growing violence
Maybe you missed it, but the car is fictional, just like many of the reports of positive change coming from the Obama administration. At least the House is blocking the path over the cliff.
This is so 1970's...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque
The Pioneer plaque showed the position of the Earth's solar system. It wasn't for human navigation on a moving space vessel. (Although in a sense the Earth is a moving space vessel.)