You might want to fire up that second brain cell of yours to understand this. Look at that definition of ruling by fiat that you posted. If the president is ruling by fiat, why did it take years of dealing to get the ACA passed? If he ruled by fiat, he would just declare it law and be done. The same goes for nearly every policy the president is pushing - the republicans block it. If he ruled by fiat, no one could block it. With regard to the original topic of surveillance, Congress approved it, FISA approved it, and it has been in place for years. Obama did not make a pronouncement and start doing it.
Look at that definition of ruling by fiat that you posted. If the president is ruling by fiat, why did it take years of dealing to get the ACA passed? If he ruled by fiat, he would just declare it law and be done
Once again you're repeating (and insulting but I'll ignore that) instead of reasoning and presenting arguments. The above describes exactly what Obama has been doing. They pass a law that allows limited monitoring of of US citizens with a tightly focused warrant for a limited amount of time. Obama declares this has a secret interpretation that allows whole sale monitoring of US citizens for years on end. Obama has declared that murdering US citizens without any due processes for associating with or supporting "terrorist" organizations is legal. There is no law that allows that and it pretty clearly is un-constitutional. The drone strikes in foreign countries are illegal under international law but Obama has declared it legal. Once again go back and read at some of the information I linked to instead of thinking you already know everything there is to know and you will find more cases of ruling by fiat.
With regard to the original topic of surveillance, Congress approved it, FISA approved it, and it has been in place for years. Obama did not make a pronouncement and start doing it.
Strange you originally said it had been going on for decades and now you're saying years. Did you actually expand your knowledge a little?. in the 1970s the Church Committee investigated illegal spying on US citizens by the CIA, NSA and FBI directed by the Nixon administration. This illegal spying was one of the articles of impeachment directed at Nixon.The original FISA law came about after the after the scandals in the 1970s with Nixon spying of US citizens. FISA Was greatly expanded after 9/11. The law doesn't allow anywhere near the scope of monitoring Obama is doing. Obama has basically declared what he is doing legal due to a secret interpretation of the law. Nixon's spying came no where near the scope of what Obama is doing.
From:
Without a court order[edit]
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information;[7] targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1),(2),(3)[12] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[13]
The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,[14] and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.[15]
Since 50 U.S.C. 1802(a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. 1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. 1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; foreign-based political o
Well! Now my feelings are hurt. I guess you got me there. You win the argument.
You ignore what I say and keep trolling.
No. I refute what you say with information and sources and you repeat exactly what I refuted with more vulgar name calling and insults thrown in each time.
No, dumbass, I'm not saying it's Bush's fault. At the risk of repeating myself - this is an NSA thing
My my. Resorting to name calling. You can't possible really think the NSA is doing all this without the blessing of the president and congress. That's just stupid. Most of congress has stated they have been aware of this being done since 2007. I'm sure both presidents were aware long before that. So I guess what you're saying is the NSA is an unstoppable organization which the president and congress have no control over? I guess they're funding it all with lemonade stands. You really need to go back and read through all those links I provided. It's multiple sources that make it pretty clear this is all being driven by the president and supported by congress.
It has been going on for decades and will continue.
So far I haven't seen any evidence that it start before 9/11. I'm guessing it's likely the NSA occasionally pushed the bounds of the law before that but I've seen nothing that indicates the wholesale monitoring of domestic communication of US citizens. They're having to build massive new data centers just to hold all the data.
And once again, this is not ruling by fiat as you claim it is. Yes, it's overstepping bounds; yes it's outrageous. No, it's not ruling by fiat. Go find a dictionary.
Ummm...
fiat: an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it.
arbitrary: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law.
Obama has initiated illegal wholesale monitoring of domestic communications of US citizens on his authority. So now I guess the dictionary is wrong? The only way it's not is if Obama isn't the originating force behind it. Again, read those links I posted and it's made pretty clear by what is known that he is.
You just don't get it. This isn't the president. It is the out-of-control intelligence community and predates the current administration.
Wow. So you're claiming this is all Bush's fault? Hmmm...and I'm the one who doesn't get it. From:
In the process--and for the first time since Watergate and the other scandals of the Nixon administration--the NSA has turned its surveillance apparatus on the US and its citizens. It has established listening posts throughout the nation to collect and sift through billions of email messages and phone calls, whether they originate within the country or overseas. It has created a supercomputer of almost unimaginable speed to look for patterns and unscramble codes. Finally, the agency has begun building a place to store all the trillions of words and thoughts and whispers captured in its electronic net. And, of course, it's all being done in secret. To those on the inside, the old adage that NSA stands for Never Say Anything applies more than ever.
You should really read the whole article. And Obama knows nothing about any of this. Yeah, right. Note the herculean effort he's making to stop it all now that it's been brought to light.
I could post dozens of more links of Obama denying and lying about what's later leaked to be true. And Obama adds the bit where he attempts to prosecute anyone who leaks as a spy to a level no other president before him has.
Don't get me wrong. I am in no way defending Bush or the Republicans or congress. They got all this rolling after 9/11. The Obama administration has taken it to a far worse level than anything Bush perpetrated.
People are missing the point here. This is in fact legal under the Patriot Act.
I don't believe that's the case. The way the law reads they can get a narrow warrant to narrowly monitor calls by specific people. None of those laws allow them to monitor all phone calls made by anyone.
Unlike Bush's surveillance, this administration actually went through the FISA courts as required by the Patriot Act.
Man I hope you're not trying to claim Obama isn't as bad as Bush was in moving this country towards a police state. The transgressions are way too many to list here. I thought the Bush administration was bad. I figured one thing the Obama administration would do was at least help in rolling back some of the more gratuitous malfeasance of Bush. Instead Obama pushed things way beyond what Bush was doing. If you don't see that you really need to take off your blue colored blinders and take an objective look.
There's no "secret laws" - everyone knows about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the Patriot Act
Ok. Show me the part of those laws that authorizes the NSA to monitor the phone calls of all US citizens that use Verizon (gonna be stupid and assume they're not monitoring any other phone companies).
The British empire kept a very, very small army. the 18th and 19th century was before the day of the professional army. Armies were raised as needed, as was the case in the Napoleonic war where soldiers were recruited for a shilling.
The professional fighting force the British kept was almost entirely in their navy, most of their land fighting force was in the Marines which served on ships and at naval bases. The Navy was the centre of British power up until the 20th century. Local governors recruited local forces unless there was a war on.
This makes no sense at all. They only raised armies as they needed them and they almost never needed an Army in the British Islands because the navy defended the home islands therefore the armies they raised when they needed them were kept where they weren't needed in the British Islands. And we all know the American colonial wars, the Napoleonic wars, the Crimean War and the Boer War (to name a few) were all fought by locals.
So secret that everyone knows that they exist.
Yup. And they somehow give the President to the right to secretly spy on and assassinate US citizens. That there is a law isn't the secret. We know these laws exists because they tell us there are secret laws that let them break the non-secret laws and usurp the constitution every time they're caught doing it. But we can't see these laws because of national security. The secret is what these supposed laws allow the government to do. If you're not aware of any of any of this you are either an idiot or willfully ignorant. No tin foil hat needed. Just actually paying attention.
I'd say this is pretty strong evidence he does. This should be both unconstitutional and illegal by all publicly known laws. If it's legal by secret laws that's pretty much the definition of ruling by fiat.
As history has shown.
The British empire kept very few English soldiers anywhere except the British isles.
In what period of modern history did the British keep the main part of their Army in the home Islands? The British relied on their navy to protect the home Islands. The Army kept order in the Empire...and fought Napoleon occasionally when they ran out of reliable countries to bribe to fight him.
democracy with a 2 term president, checks and balances, and media that scrutinizes and publicizes every dump a politician takes
Hmmm...those checks and balances include it being unconstitutional to spy on US citizens in the US without a narrowly focused warrant or at least they use to. The Obama administration is trying real hard to make reporting on political secrets treason. Seems the system you speak of is rather failing apart.
It's typical for low ranking people to have access to all kinds of classified material. I don't know if you've ever been in the service but I assume from your know it all attitude you must have at least some experience and think you're the expert. I know from my experience that low ranking enlisted are often given high access to classified material. That is the beauty of the military, everyone has a job to do and they do it regardless of rank.
Duh. Low ranking people have access to classified material? I never would have guessed that. Yes I did 4 years in the infantry. My "know it all attitude" as you put doesn't stem from my military experience. My "know it all attitude" comes from doing computer security consulting. And it's not know it all. It's knowing the basics of security. I don't care what his job was. He had no reason to have access to what he did. No one person had reason to have access to all the stuff he had access to. That volume of secure material should have had some sort of access control. Credit card numbers and healthcare information require it. Don't you think material the government has rated secret would have at least the same level of controls as they do? It doesn't taken a genius or knowing it all to come to that conclusion. Give me one even vague or remote reason anyone should have access to 250,000 United States diplomatic cables and 500,000 army reports much less someone doing operational intelligence in a war zone. I have no friggin idea how anyone with half a brain could come up with any way to rationalize that. But then again I'm the clueless moron.
Making a decision on what material should be released to the public is hardly his to make. If you think we should let every soldier decide for himself what should be released for public viewing then you are the clueless moron.
It is if it's illegal operations being performed by the military he is required to bring it to light if the chain of command isn't working. That's part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It requires you to bring that information to light. So i guess the Uniform Code of Military Justice is the clueless moron. Having military experience I'd think you'd know that.
Mind you I'm not saying what is did was right. I don't have all the information. What I do know is from what I have seen and do know it doesn't rise to the level of treason. He shouldn't be on trial for his life. And it certainly doesn't justify locking him up for 5 years without a trial and torturing him.
What a sensationalist statement in an otherwise intelligent post. It's obvious you have no attachment to the reality of the situations that lead to these events. if he's working intel, why on Earth would he not have access?
Man I hope you don't work in any field that requires even the most basic security. It's anything but sensational. He's as a PFC. He's a friggin clerk. That's the third lowest rank in the Army and you typically get it a couple weeks out of basic. It's the sheer volume of what he had access to that's completely idiotic from a security aspect. The detachment from reality is a PFC having access to all that.
Second massive security lapse, when anyone accesses secure information it should be logged exactly when and what. There should have been Hollywood alarm bells and flashing red lights at anyone accessing everything he did. You can buy commercial DLP systems that alarm on that type of stuff. HIPAA and PCI DSS rules are apparently more stringent that that of the US military.
There should be a line of court marshals due to the fact he was able to do what he did. Instead they're persecuting him.
Treason requires no gain,
I never said treason required gain. The two typical motivations for treason are ideological or personal gain. It should be obvious he didn't do it due to ideological differences and he made no gain. Lake of motive is a strong part of his defense. Or it should be if he wasn't being railroaded.
it's subverting your government/forces and aiding the enemy.
He never talk to the enemy. He didn't give information to the enemy. He gave it to an organization that did it's best to ensure nothing was published that would cause direct harm to anyone. That organization asked for help to accomplish this. As I said he also brought to light the criminal lack of security exercised by the military. Nor was his motivation to aid the enemy. His motivation was to bring to light potentially illegal operations by the US military. This does even come close to the level of treason. At least before Obama took office. His administration thinks any leak that makes him look bad is treason. He's prosecuted more whistle blowers than every other president before him combined.
That happened here, end of discussion.
Yup. No trial. No defense of any kind. Just lock him up and torture him. (Yes I consider what they did to him crossed the line to torture.)
You see, first he swears to defend the Constitution and then to obey.
Note that is to obey within the scope of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Knowingly following an illegal order makes you just as guilty as the person giving the order. "I was just following orders" is NOT a valid defense in the US military.
Especially as the PFC actually raised his right hand and swore to be a good and obedient soldier.
How the hell does this get modded insightful? It should be modded "Clueless Moron". At no time and no where does the US military require an oath to be "to be a good and obedient soldier." In the US military it's drilled into you that you have an obligation NOT to follow illegal orders and will suffer the full consequences should you knowingly do so. At least it was when I was in. Hope THAT hasn't changed. The oath is to the constitution and to obey per the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Note that is to obey within the limits of the law. "I was just following orders" is NOT a valid defense in the US military.
His was an act of treason whereas reporters are generally depended upon to be all about the story they are after.
I think he should be given a medal for showing how obscenely lacking the security is. Strangely absolutely no one latches on the that aspect of the story which I think is the most important aspect. The fact that one PFC had the ability to leak that volume of secret information is enough to make any security professional's head explode.
Treason would have been selling it for personal gain to some foreign power or organization that would use it for nefarious purposes. Whether what he did rises past whistle blower to the level being criminal is arguable. But given his stated motivations coupled with the fact that he got no gain of any sort out of the leak puts forth a pretty strong case that from at least his perspective he was following his oath "to be a good and obedient soldier" by leaking the information.
Interesting that you're not prepared to guarantee your work. It would make me wary of contracting you as it places the onus on me to ensure that I've throughly tested your code rather than on you. Is this common practice?
I'm still laughing at this. I'm hoping you don't work in any field related to developing software. It's absolutely critical that someone other than the developer test software. Any but the most trivial software has a huge amount of variables involved. The developer tends to test what he thinks the program should do. She'll never test all the possible combinations of crap a user will toss at a piece of software. It just won't happen.
So you are still providing free support for every piece of software you've ever written? Or do you think there are no bugs in the software you developed in which case you should stay out of software development because you don't have a clue what you are doing.
A contractor is a supplier, not an employee, and should therefore be working to provide something to a contract.
Depends on the contract. There's time and material contracts and there's turn key contracts. The former are much more common than the later in the software field. I won't bid a turn key contract unless there is a very detailed spec, detailed stipulations for acceptance conditions and some sort of support agreement after acceptance. I have yet to see any spec from anywhere that was detailed enough to even come close to what the spec writer actually wanted. Writing such a spec takes almost as long as developing the software and anyone other than an experienced software developer can very rarely do it.
When I was at school, my parents hired a contractor to build an extension to the house. The project finished late, and the contract had penalty conditions for late completion, so my parents ended up paying less. This is standard practice in most contractor fields, so why should a coding contractor expect to be any different? Paying for bugs is effectively a bonus for late completion, which is a bit daft.
Building an extension to a house is trivial when compared to the complexities involved in developing any kind of software. And I guarantee the submitter's specs aren't detailed to the point there are no ambiguities in what's needed. If you think otherwise you need to stay out of software development because you haven't a clue what you are doing.
The patentability of software only applies when it is run on a computer.
Software isn't being patented in "software" patents. Vague ideas and idioms are patented. Pinching the screen to zoom isn't a software patent. If it was a software patent the patent should be on exactly how the software accomplishes the effect, on the implementation. If my implementation accomplishes the effect differently it wouldn't infringe your patent. The implementation is the code. The code is copyrighted. A real software patent would be redundant. The way it works now is the equivalent of inventing a special kind of drill bit and getting a patent on anything that makes holes. That's how software patents work now.
Roman's comment is a classic example of a black-and-white world. In his mind, it isn't possible to have a government do anything without it automatically becoming tyrannical.
NeutronCowboy's comment is a classic example of a black-and-white world. In his mind, it isn't possible to have a government do anything that isn't in the interest of the people. Furthermore, the slightest overreach by any individual or organization is immediately a call for government regulation to protect the interest of any individual or group that might be harmed in any manner , followed by cries to dismantle those organizations in favor of government controlled and regulated ones instead.
See. That works both ways. You're at least as closed minded as the individual you are accusing.
I'll tell you though. If you don't think the governments of the free world, with the US taking the lead (USA, USA, USA...), aren't overreaching and acting in interests different than, if not outright opposed to, the interests of the people in general you're either willfully ignorant or blind.
If you don't have an engineering degree (hint, it's got to have Eng in the degree classification) then you are not an engineer, no-matter how that deflates your ego.
I hope you realize you're actually helping support my argument. The word engineer when applied to a profession generally denotes (or should at least) a level a professionalism and expertise in that particular field above the norm. A piece of paper from a university doesn't make you particularly skilled in a profession much less an expert as much as that may deflate your ego. The title engineer should only be granted after proven practical expertise in the field. Otherwise it becomes as meaningless there as it does when applied to software development.
The actual difference is between a competent professional and a code monkey who just bangs out code with no understanding of design or how their software is working. They also both get to be called software engineer, programmer and a multitude of other titles, hence the reason it doesn't matter. Anyone can call themselves a software engineer, they really don't care about your personal distinctions.
And once again you're reiterating the problem rather than seeing the point I was trying to make. "competent professional" vs. "code monkey". It's all just semantics. I was actually trying to define the terms: Software Engineer = "competent professional", programmer = "code monkey". The problem is making people who aren't in the field see that there is a massive difference there. Thus the usage of the work "engineer" to denote the competent professional software developer. If these terms were used consistently it might actually help distinguish between the 2 rather than having an attitude like yours that does nothing but perpetuate the confusion.
I've yet to meet a software professional (someone you would refer to as a "Software Engineer") who gave a crap about basic job title. If you have the talent, experience and competence you really don't need to use a title as a crutch.
It isn't about the person with the title. It's about trying to help people who don't know the field differentiate between the competent professional and the code monkey.
Slashdot Mirror
He moved to Canada, just like everybody who keeps threatening to.
The 51st state is following right along with the land of the free.
You might want to fire up that second brain cell of yours to understand this. Look at that definition of ruling by fiat that you posted. If the president is ruling by fiat, why did it take years of dealing to get the ACA passed? If he ruled by fiat, he would just declare it law and be done. The same goes for nearly every policy the president is pushing - the republicans block it. If he ruled by fiat, no one could block it. With regard to the original topic of surveillance, Congress approved it, FISA approved it, and it has been in place for years. Obama did not make a pronouncement and start doing it.
Look at that definition of ruling by fiat that you posted. If the president is ruling by fiat, why did it take years of dealing to get the ACA passed? If he ruled by fiat, he would just declare it law and be done
Once again you're repeating (and insulting but I'll ignore that) instead of reasoning and presenting arguments. The above describes exactly what Obama has been doing. They pass a law that allows limited monitoring of of US citizens with a tightly focused warrant for a limited amount of time. Obama declares this has a secret interpretation that allows whole sale monitoring of US citizens for years on end. Obama has declared that murdering US citizens without any due processes for associating with or supporting "terrorist" organizations is legal. There is no law that allows that and it pretty clearly is un-constitutional. The drone strikes in foreign countries are illegal under international law but Obama has declared it legal. Once again go back and read at some of the information I linked to instead of thinking you already know everything there is to know and you will find more cases of ruling by fiat.
With regard to the original topic of surveillance, Congress approved it, FISA approved it, and it has been in place for years. Obama did not make a pronouncement and start doing it.
Strange you originally said it had been going on for decades and now you're saying years. Did you actually expand your knowledge a little?. in the 1970s the Church Committee investigated illegal spying on US citizens by the CIA, NSA and FBI directed by the Nixon administration. This illegal spying was one of the articles of impeachment directed at Nixon .The original FISA law came about after the after the scandals in the 1970s with Nixon spying of US citizens. FISA Was greatly expanded after 9/11. The law doesn't allow anywhere near the scope of monitoring Obama is doing. Obama has basically declared what he is doing legal due to a secret interpretation of the law. Nixon's spying came no where near the scope of what Obama is doing.
From:
Hey, troll. STFU.
Well! Now my feelings are hurt. I guess you got me there. You win the argument.
You ignore what I say and keep trolling.
No. I refute what you say with information and sources and you repeat exactly what I refuted with more vulgar name calling and insults thrown in each time.
No, dumbass, I'm not saying it's Bush's fault. At the risk of repeating myself - this is an NSA thing
My my. Resorting to name calling. You can't possible really think the NSA is doing all this without the blessing of the president and congress. That's just stupid. Most of congress has stated they have been aware of this being done since 2007. I'm sure both presidents were aware long before that. So I guess what you're saying is the NSA is an unstoppable organization which the president and congress have no control over? I guess they're funding it all with lemonade stands. You really need to go back and read through all those links I provided. It's multiple sources that make it pretty clear this is all being driven by the president and supported by congress.
It has been going on for decades and will continue.
So far I haven't seen any evidence that it start before 9/11. I'm guessing it's likely the NSA occasionally pushed the bounds of the law before that but I've seen nothing that indicates the wholesale monitoring of domestic communication of US citizens. They're having to build massive new data centers just to hold all the data.
And once again, this is not ruling by fiat as you claim it is. Yes, it's overstepping bounds; yes it's outrageous. No, it's not ruling by fiat. Go find a dictionary.
Ummm...
Obama has initiated illegal wholesale monitoring of domestic communications of US citizens on his authority. So now I guess the dictionary is wrong? The only way it's not is if Obama isn't the originating force behind it. Again, read those links I posted and it's made pretty clear by what is known that he is.
You just don't get it. This isn't the president. It is the out-of-control intelligence community and predates the current administration.
Wow. So you're claiming this is all Bush's fault? Hmmm...and I'm the one who doesn't get it. From:
You should really read the whole article. And Obama knows nothing about any of this. Yeah, right. Note the herculean effort he's making to stop it all now that it's been brought to light.
I could post dozens of more links of Obama denying and lying about what's later leaked to be true. And Obama adds the bit where he attempts to prosecute anyone who leaks as a spy to a level no other president before him has.
Don't get me wrong. I am in no way defending Bush or the Republicans or congress. They got all this rolling after 9/11. The Obama administration has taken it to a far worse level than anything Bush perpetrated.
People are missing the point here. This is in fact legal under the Patriot Act.
I don't believe that's the case. The way the law reads they can get a narrow warrant to narrowly monitor calls by specific people. None of those laws allow them to monitor all phone calls made by anyone.
Unlike Bush's surveillance, this administration actually went through the FISA courts as required by the Patriot Act.
Man I hope you're not trying to claim Obama isn't as bad as Bush was in moving this country towards a police state. The transgressions are way too many to list here. I thought the Bush administration was bad. I figured one thing the Obama administration would do was at least help in rolling back some of the more gratuitous malfeasance of Bush. Instead Obama pushed things way beyond what Bush was doing. If you don't see that you really need to take off your blue colored blinders and take an objective look.
The president rules exclusively by fiat
The president rules by decree with absolute power? Man, you're right. I really need to review the law. It's change a lot.
It doesn't even remotely show it. This is NSA business as usual. If the president ruled by Fiat
Yeah, blatantly violating the constitution and violating the law in no way indicates ruling by fiat. Just business as usual.
There's no "secret laws" - everyone knows about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the Patriot Act
Ok. Show me the part of those laws that authorizes the NSA to monitor the phone calls of all US citizens that use Verizon (gonna be stupid and assume they're not monitoring any other phone companies).
The British empire kept a very, very small army. the 18th and 19th century was before the day of the professional army. Armies were raised as needed, as was the case in the Napoleonic war where soldiers were recruited for a shilling.
The professional fighting force the British kept was almost entirely in their navy, most of their land fighting force was in the Marines which served on ships and at naval bases. The Navy was the centre of British power up until the 20th century. Local governors recruited local forces unless there was a war on.
This makes no sense at all. They only raised armies as they needed them and they almost never needed an Army in the British Islands because the navy defended the home islands therefore the armies they raised when they needed them were kept where they weren't needed in the British Islands. And we all know the American colonial wars, the Napoleonic wars, the Crimean War and the Boer War (to name a few) were all fought by locals.
So secret that everyone knows that they exist.
Yup. And they somehow give the President to the right to secretly spy on and assassinate US citizens. That there is a law isn't the secret. We know these laws exists because they tell us there are secret laws that let them break the non-secret laws and usurp the constitution every time they're caught doing it. But we can't see these laws because of national security. The secret is what these supposed laws allow the government to do. If you're not aware of any of any of this you are either an idiot or willfully ignorant. No tin foil hat needed. Just actually paying attention.
Plus the US president doesn't rule by fiat.
I'd say this is pretty strong evidence he does. This should be both unconstitutional and illegal by all publicly known laws. If it's legal by secret laws that's pretty much the definition of ruling by fiat.
As history has shown.
The British empire kept very few English soldiers anywhere except the British isles.
In what period of modern history did the British keep the main part of their Army in the home Islands? The British relied on their navy to protect the home Islands. The Army kept order in the Empire...and fought Napoleon occasionally when they ran out of reliable countries to bribe to fight him.
democracy with a 2 term president, checks and balances, and media that scrutinizes and publicizes every dump a politician takes
Hmmm...those checks and balances include it being unconstitutional to spy on US citizens in the US without a narrowly focused warrant or at least they use to. The Obama administration is trying real hard to make reporting on political secrets treason. Seems the system you speak of is rather failing apart.
I have to give out my personal data to a site that I don't know is legitimate
No, you don't. This is what KeePassX is for. You select random answers to the questions.
What city were you born in?
Fred Flinstone
When you remove subscription paying readers from the equation
When you remove actual investigative reporting of real news from the equation...
It's typical for low ranking people to have access to all kinds of classified material. I don't know if you've ever been in the service but I assume from your know it all attitude you must have at least some experience and think you're the expert. I know from my experience that low ranking enlisted are often given high access to classified material. That is the beauty of the military, everyone has a job to do and they do it regardless of rank.
Duh. Low ranking people have access to classified material? I never would have guessed that. Yes I did 4 years in the infantry. My "know it all attitude" as you put doesn't stem from my military experience. My "know it all attitude" comes from doing computer security consulting. And it's not know it all. It's knowing the basics of security. I don't care what his job was. He had no reason to have access to what he did. No one person had reason to have access to all the stuff he had access to. That volume of secure material should have had some sort of access control. Credit card numbers and healthcare information require it. Don't you think material the government has rated secret would have at least the same level of controls as they do? It doesn't taken a genius or knowing it all to come to that conclusion. Give me one even vague or remote reason anyone should have access to 250,000 United States diplomatic cables and 500,000 army reports much less someone doing operational intelligence in a war zone. I have no friggin idea how anyone with half a brain could come up with any way to rationalize that. But then again I'm the clueless moron.
Making a decision on what material should be released to the public is hardly his to make. If you think we should let every soldier decide for himself what should be released for public viewing then you are the clueless moron.
It is if it's illegal operations being performed by the military he is required to bring it to light if the chain of command isn't working. That's part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It requires you to bring that information to light. So i guess the Uniform Code of Military Justice is the clueless moron. Having military experience I'd think you'd know that.
Mind you I'm not saying what is did was right. I don't have all the information. What I do know is from what I have seen and do know it doesn't rise to the level of treason. He shouldn't be on trial for his life. And it certainly doesn't justify locking him up for 5 years without a trial and torturing him.
What a sensationalist statement in an otherwise intelligent post. It's obvious you have no attachment to the reality of the situations that lead to these events. if he's working intel, why on Earth would he not have access?
Man I hope you don't work in any field that requires even the most basic security. It's anything but sensational. He's as a PFC. He's a friggin clerk. That's the third lowest rank in the Army and you typically get it a couple weeks out of basic. It's the sheer volume of what he had access to that's completely idiotic from a security aspect. The detachment from reality is a PFC having access to all that.
Second massive security lapse, when anyone accesses secure information it should be logged exactly when and what. There should have been Hollywood alarm bells and flashing red lights at anyone accessing everything he did. You can buy commercial DLP systems that alarm on that type of stuff. HIPAA and PCI DSS rules are apparently more stringent that that of the US military.
There should be a line of court marshals due to the fact he was able to do what he did. Instead they're persecuting him.
Treason requires no gain,
I never said treason required gain. The two typical motivations for treason are ideological or personal gain. It should be obvious he didn't do it due to ideological differences and he made no gain. Lake of motive is a strong part of his defense. Or it should be if he wasn't being railroaded.
it's subverting your government/forces and aiding the enemy.
He never talk to the enemy. He didn't give information to the enemy. He gave it to an organization that did it's best to ensure nothing was published that would cause direct harm to anyone. That organization asked for help to accomplish this. As I said he also brought to light the criminal lack of security exercised by the military. Nor was his motivation to aid the enemy. His motivation was to bring to light potentially illegal operations by the US military. This does even come close to the level of treason. At least before Obama took office. His administration thinks any leak that makes him look bad is treason. He's prosecuted more whistle blowers than every other president before him combined.
That happened here, end of discussion.
Yup. No trial. No defense of any kind. Just lock him up and torture him. (Yes I consider what they did to him crossed the line to torture.)
Welcome to the new America.
You see, first he swears to defend the Constitution and then to obey.
Note that is to obey within the scope of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Knowingly following an illegal order makes you just as guilty as the person giving the order. "I was just following orders" is NOT a valid defense in the US military.
Especially as the PFC actually raised his right hand and swore to be a good and obedient soldier.
How the hell does this get modded insightful? It should be modded "Clueless Moron". At no time and no where does the US military require an oath to be "to be a good and obedient soldier." In the US military it's drilled into you that you have an obligation NOT to follow illegal orders and will suffer the full consequences should you knowingly do so. At least it was when I was in. Hope THAT hasn't changed. The oath is to the constitution and to obey per the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Note that is to obey within the limits of the law. "I was just following orders" is NOT a valid defense in the US military.
His was an act of treason whereas reporters are generally depended upon to be all about the story they are after.
I think he should be given a medal for showing how obscenely lacking the security is. Strangely absolutely no one latches on the that aspect of the story which I think is the most important aspect. The fact that one PFC had the ability to leak that volume of secret information is enough to make any security professional's head explode.
Treason would have been selling it for personal gain to some foreign power or organization that would use it for nefarious purposes. Whether what he did rises past whistle blower to the level being criminal is arguable. But given his stated motivations coupled with the fact that he got no gain of any sort out of the leak puts forth a pretty strong case that from at least his perspective he was following his oath "to be a good and obedient soldier" by leaking the information.
Interesting that you're not prepared to guarantee your work. It would make me wary of contracting you as it places the onus on me to ensure that I've throughly tested your code rather than on you. Is this common practice?
I'm still laughing at this. I'm hoping you don't work in any field related to developing software. It's absolutely critical that someone other than the developer test software. Any but the most trivial software has a huge amount of variables involved. The developer tends to test what he thinks the program should do. She'll never test all the possible combinations of crap a user will toss at a piece of software. It just won't happen.
My bugs are my responsibility
So you are still providing free support for every piece of software you've ever written? Or do you think there are no bugs in the software you developed in which case you should stay out of software development because you don't have a clue what you are doing.
A contractor is a supplier, not an employee, and should therefore be working to provide something to a contract.
Depends on the contract. There's time and material contracts and there's turn key contracts. The former are much more common than the later in the software field. I won't bid a turn key contract unless there is a very detailed spec, detailed stipulations for acceptance conditions and some sort of support agreement after acceptance. I have yet to see any spec from anywhere that was detailed enough to even come close to what the spec writer actually wanted. Writing such a spec takes almost as long as developing the software and anyone other than an experienced software developer can very rarely do it.
When I was at school, my parents hired a contractor to build an extension to the house. The project finished late, and the contract had penalty conditions for late completion, so my parents ended up paying less. This is standard practice in most contractor fields, so why should a coding contractor expect to be any different? Paying for bugs is effectively a bonus for late completion, which is a bit daft.
Building an extension to a house is trivial when compared to the complexities involved in developing any kind of software. And I guarantee the submitter's specs aren't detailed to the point there are no ambiguities in what's needed. If you think otherwise you need to stay out of software development because you haven't a clue what you are doing.
it's the idea/process that the software is an implementation of that is eligible for patent protection.
Ummm...I think you're missing the entire point. Ideas are NOT supposed to be patentable. implementations are.
The patentability of software only applies when it is run on a computer.
Software isn't being patented in "software" patents. Vague ideas and idioms are patented. Pinching the screen to zoom isn't a software patent. If it was a software patent the patent should be on exactly how the software accomplishes the effect, on the implementation. If my implementation accomplishes the effect differently it wouldn't infringe your patent. The implementation is the code. The code is copyrighted. A real software patent would be redundant. The way it works now is the equivalent of inventing a special kind of drill bit and getting a patent on anything that makes holes. That's how software patents work now.
Foed just because you're quoting Ayn Rand.
Yeah, you're not narrow minded at all.
Roman's comment is a classic example of a black-and-white world. In his mind, it isn't possible to have a government do anything without it automatically becoming tyrannical.
NeutronCowboy's comment is a classic example of a black-and-white world. In his mind, it isn't possible to have a government do anything that isn't in the interest of the people. Furthermore, the slightest overreach by any individual or organization is immediately a call for government regulation to protect the interest of any individual or group that might be harmed in any manner , followed by cries to dismantle those organizations in favor of government controlled and regulated ones instead.
See. That works both ways. You're at least as closed minded as the individual you are accusing.
I'll tell you though. If you don't think the governments of the free world, with the US taking the lead (USA, USA, USA...), aren't overreaching and acting in interests different than, if not outright opposed to, the interests of the people in general you're either willfully ignorant or blind.
If you don't have an engineering degree (hint, it's got to have Eng in the degree classification) then you are not an engineer, no-matter how that deflates your ego.
I hope you realize you're actually helping support my argument. The word engineer when applied to a profession generally denotes (or should at least) a level a professionalism and expertise in that particular field above the norm. A piece of paper from a university doesn't make you particularly skilled in a profession much less an expert as much as that may deflate your ego. The title engineer should only be granted after proven practical expertise in the field. Otherwise it becomes as meaningless there as it does when applied to software development.
The actual difference is between a competent professional and a code monkey who just bangs out code with no understanding of design or how their software is working. They also both get to be called software engineer, programmer and a multitude of other titles, hence the reason it doesn't matter. Anyone can call themselves a software engineer, they really don't care about your personal distinctions.
And once again you're reiterating the problem rather than seeing the point I was trying to make. "competent professional" vs. "code monkey". It's all just semantics. I was actually trying to define the terms: Software Engineer = "competent professional", programmer = "code monkey". The problem is making people who aren't in the field see that there is a massive difference there. Thus the usage of the work "engineer" to denote the competent professional software developer. If these terms were used consistently it might actually help distinguish between the 2 rather than having an attitude like yours that does nothing but perpetuate the confusion.
I've yet to meet a software professional (someone you would refer to as a "Software Engineer") who gave a crap about basic job title. If you have the talent, experience and competence you really don't need to use a title as a crutch.
It isn't about the person with the title. It's about trying to help people who don't know the field differentiate between the competent professional and the code monkey.