If this is a propagandist's attempt at a smear-piece, it's bad one.
You know I actually didn't realise that it was meant to be a smear. I mean Snowden was a whistleblower. One expects whistleblowers to release information that they're not "supposed" to which often involves getting information they're not "supposed" to have.
I agree with you, and it certainly didn't lessen my opinion of Snowden. I admit that I only assume it was meant to be a smear-piece against Snowden, based on its "sources" (or lack thereof,) and the identity of the submitter — cold fjord surely would not have submitted this unless he believed it would tarnish Snowden's reputation to a greater degree than the NSA's. Had those factors been absent, I would have assumed the focus was meant to be on the NSA's security failure and its vulnerability to social engineering.
It has made so many enemies, it doesn't know where the next attack may come from. So universal surveillance is necessary. Maybe make less enemies next time?
We haven't really heard anyone's version of any alleged events; RTFA — the sources for this piece are literally referred to as "sources."
If this is a propagandist's attempt at a smear-piece, it's bad one. If the claims in this article are true, it's a greater indictment against NSA's security policies than it is against anything Snowden has done. What I see is NSA's propaganda/media relations contractor grasping at straws here.
(Reuters) - Former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden used login credentials and passwords provided unwittingly by colleagues at a spy base in Hawaii to access some of the classified material he leaked to the media, sources said.
Snowden may have persuaded between 20 and 25 fellow workers at the NSA regional operations center in Hawaii to give him their logins and passwords by telling them they were needed for him to do his job as a computer systems administrator, a second source said.
While the U.S. government now believes it has a good idea of all the data to which Snowden could have accessed, investigators are not positive which and how much of that data Snowden actually downloaded, the sources said.
This garbage has the same quality sourcing as the hit-piece published by The New York Times and The New Yorker that spread unsubstantiated rumors claiming that Snowden had given classified documents (i.e., unpublished material) to Chinese and Russian officials.
It's not just sites -= it preserves warez collections too. Unfortunately.
What's unfortunate about it?
Currently, the only means by which these cultural works are preserved (in a form unencumbered by DRM, and thus easily usable by current and future generations) are a) peoples' personal collections, with distribution and redundancy provided by file-sharing networks, b) web sites that host them, which are ephemeral in nature due to low funding and persistent legal attacks, and c) copies of those sites maintained by archive.org.
For-profit copyright holders that create these works have a perverse incentive to ensure their works do not survive beyond the period during which they hold a work's copyright, nor beyond the time during which the work is netting them sufficient profit. In other words, it is in the interest of a for-profit entity to have all copies of their works wiped out as soon as copyright or sufficient profitability ends — whichever comes first. I believe that this is contrary to the interests of society as a whole, and I do what I can to help perpetuate the preservation and availability of works that would otherwise be destroyed due to legal or financial incentives.
To provide just one example of the custodial role of file-sharers: I find it very unlikely that the file-sharing community would ever collectively "lose" some portion of old Doctor Who episodes — as, for the segment of society that participates in file-sharing, those episodes are artifacts of cultural significance, while for the copyright holder(s) they are mere consumer products, destined to be replaced (as opposed to added to) by other products at their whim.
Obama may have run on a somewhat leftist platform in 2008, but that's no "liberal" in the White House.
Funny how Liberals pretend to care about right and wrong, but will create a police state if you give them the chance.
Left and right governments around the world both create police states — what they have in common is authoritarianism, not liberalism (or conservatism).
I'm curious why Snowden is doing this now. The domestic revelations were very important, and I thank him for them. These foreign revelations are another story. I doubt they do any harm, or at least no more than finding out that the sun rises in the east. But why? Does he think these are a big deal? Does he just want revenge? Or (one to be hoped for) he just wants to keep making noise about the NSA until something is done about the domestic situation. Inquiring minds want to know.
I think it's worth remembering that ever since (or prior to) Russia granted Snowden's request for asylum, the press has been in control of the manner in which Snowden's material is published. No new leaks (by Snowden) was a condition of Russia's for granting his request for asylum.
[I]f you gave half a shit you would google it yourself.
Protip: I found them by googling [...]
I give a shit, but I use a web search site that isn't provided by a repeat-violator of privacy laws, and a known NSA/GCHQ-collaborator. They exist — you just need to give a shit about your privacy*: https://prism-break.org/#en (See under "Web search.")
* Maybe you don't give a shit... I don't know — I'm just letting you know that there are less-intrusive alternatives.
I've been trying to do that as well. I wrote an essay articulating what I think the major problems are and some possible solutions (including term limits for all of congress, banning lobbying money from the system, and removing the parties from control of the election process). The first step was taking back control of our elections, and I was going after the League of Women Voters to get involved with the goal of having them moderate the debate process again. They were completely apathetic to the idea, I frankly don't even know if they read the essay. It isn't even very long. Apathy is the major thing threatening this country, no one cares about anything that goes on as long as it doesn't directly affect them. The politicians are in office for one reason: to stay there. And people will keep voting in the same people because those are the options that get presented to them. It's hard to find any momentum in a push to get that changed.
Thank you, both for or your reply and for your efforts towards the goals that we share.
LWV seemed like an ideal recipient for your essay — it must have been disheartening to have been ignored by them, and I'm sorry to hear that that's what happened. Hopefully, voters will be more receptive to third-parties in the future, due in part to the potential disillusionment caused by the similarities between the Bush II and Obama administrations.
I'm sure I could learn something new from someone who shares in the idea of disrupting the strangle-hold that the corrupt and collusive Democrats and Republicans have on our elections — or, at least, persuading fewer people to waste their votes on "(lesser) evil." Thus, I'm very interested in reading your essay, if you'd be so kind as to provide a means for me to do so.
Sounds legit. Must be the same "two US intelligence officials" that told The New Yorker and The New York Times that, somehow, they "knew" Snowden released information (like his passport?) to Chinese and Russian officials.
This is just another PR smear-piece sponsored by the IC. Besides, we already know that blowback from genuinely dangerous boogeymen in planned using couriers.
He gave aid and comfort to the United States' enemies — the American people? Because he told us about the crimes being committed against us on our own dime?
What crimes specifically? If crimes have been committed who has been arrested, charged and convicted? Perhaps you are basing your opinion on the "facts" from television (or slashdot as it may be).
What crimes? The mass, unwarranted surveillance of the US population, in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution.
Why are you expecting there to be arrests or charges? Do you think that if the Executive branch is willing to blatantly ignore the limits on its power, — as defined by the Constitution — that it's going to charge itself when it's caught violating the Constitutional rights of the US populace? You seem to be under the impression that the federal government is still operating within the limits of the Constitution; clearly, that is not the case.
Why do you assume that the Democratic and Republican parties would allow him to participate in their presidential election process?
We need to vote those crooks out, and keep 'em out. We already have better left and right parties to replace them: Green and Libertarian.
I'm well aware that achieving that may be an insurmountable task, but it's what I'm after, regardless of how the deck is stacked, and I'm never going back.
I have yet to meet a citizen that considers him a traitor...
Now you just did. Snowden is a traitor [...]
He gave aid and comfort to the United States' enemies — the American people? Because he told us about the crimes being committed against us on our own dime?
Is this belief based on enjoyment of being ruled by authoritarian criminals, hatred of the US Constitution, basing your opinion on the "facts" from television, or something else? Are you a powerful criminal, such as a mob boss, who empathizes with the law-breakers drunk on the power they have over the rest of us?
[...] and will eventually pay...
He's already paid — he had to abandon his home, friends, and family in order to report serious crimes being committed against us by our government, so that we'd be able to defend ourselves, demand accountability, and try to restore the rule of law, as based on our Constitution.
By the way, you're not really a "citizen" anymore, but something more akin to a subject who's being criminally victimized by your own government — or you're in on it, or suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Hell if I know what's going on in your head... I'm glad that I was informed about these criminal activities being committed against us using our own tax dollars, and have the self-determination and soundness of mind to put that information to use. You use it to bellyache about the messenger being a "traitor"; well, look in the mirror, buddy. If you support the criminals in power, you're closer to being a traitor than Snowden is. It seems to me you'd shit on the US Constitution because those entrusted to uphold it tell you it's the right thing to do. You should try reading it first.
There's nothing I could do to repay my debt of gratitude to Ed Snowden. Instead, what I do is I try to inform others about these ongoing crimes, tell them how they can protect themselves somewhat, and try to explain why the Democratic and Republican parties are for the most part criminal enterprises with our interests at the bottom of their agendas, so that they might find a more honest parties' candidates they might not have previously considered voting for.
Says all those people who like to speed. As soon as you or someone you love gets killed or injured by a speeder, your tune will change.
If I have loved-ones accidentally killed by a person who takes Zoloft, didn't get enough sleep, was stressed by divorce proceedings, was late for work, was perhaps going a little over the speed limit, and crossed the center-line... How should I change my tune then? Which thing(s) should I go into a moral panic or rage over? What new law (preferably named after my lost loved-one) should I demand in order to restrict peoples' behavior and liberties, "so something likes this never happens to anyone else?"
Maybe — as someone who's lost three loved-ones near-simultaneously to another driver — I should just keep in mind that about 600 people die on US roads and highways each week, and oftentimes things don't go the way I'd like them to.
This. Not only that, this is a clear case where he SHOULD be, if not arrested, at least fined heavily. This is clear cut reckless driving; speed limits are posted to keep the public safe. Stunts like this should not be pulled at the potential expense of other drivers on the road. We're all beholden to the same laws, whether you're trying to break a record or not.
I don't buy into this philosophy of punishing people for "crimes" based on arbitrary risks of things that could, but did not occur — and they are most certainly arbitrary: Texting-while-driving is illegal, but adjusting-the-stereo-while-driving is not, nor are any of the following "risky" activites illegal when performed while driving: putting on makeup, talking to passengers, turning around to yell at ones' kids, solving a crossword puzzle, driving after having had poor-quality or inadequate sleep, driving while having to taking a piss, driving outside of the envelope of peak physical and mental human performance conditions, and so on. That these activities are legal while driving represents a gaping hole in the philosophy of writing and enforcing laws based on risks.
Another example, taking risk-based vehicular "crime" close to its logical conclusion: Clearly, it would be safest for there to be only one car on the road at a time, or to enforce a half-mile vehicle-separation distance. This would eliminate nearly all multi-vehicle collisions; by driving near, or (even worse) towards me, you put my life at risk! This is unreasonable, and impossible to enforce in a consistent or productive manner. What is reasonable, is to make it a crime to cause damage to people or property by way of negligence — but, we already have that. The rest — these "risk-crimes" — are all instances of moral panics, cash-grabs, power-grabs, and authoritarianism run amok — "for our own good." No, thanks. If someone actually hurts someone else, that's something else entirely, and worth having the laws we have against.
You wouldn't have even known this event had occurred, had he not come forward, because there were no victims. This guy hurt no one, and in my opinion deserves no penalty.
[N]obody cares about the NSA spying on me (I'm sure someone is).
I care about the NSA spying on you (yes, you), but I can't stop it. I tell people about it, (because the major domestic "news" corporations* don't/won't in a meaningful way), and I tell people what they can do to help protect themselves and others (to some degree) — and I do those things whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself: https://ssd.eff.org/
* Except for PBS, although (as I'm certain you're aware) the differences between PBS and those other sources are vast. I watch nearly every episode of Frontline; it seems to be our only televised source of proper, in-depth investigative journalism — and they seem to be only domestic broadcaster with the guts to dig into harmful/corrupt/malfeasant government activities that affect ordinary "viewers like you," and ask tough questions without regard for D/R partisan bullshit, and so on. They did an episode on NSA's domestic surveillance in 2006, which I seed perpetually on BitTorrent (in addition to their episode on bullshit forensic pseudo-science).
It's problematic if becomes some niche thing like Tor, which the NSA knows to zoom in to, as the people with something crucial to hide might be found there.
That's why one of the goals of the anti-surveillance movement is to increase Tor participation — the bigger it is, the better the protection (probabilistically-speaking) afforded to each participant. I use Tor (plus DNSCrypt) for everything I can, except for BitTorrent payload data... (For that, I use forced-RC4-160; unlike "plain" BT encryption, encrypts the payload in addition to the header. Yes, RC4 is very weak (even "broken"), but it's still a hassle for Eve compared to plaintext). It's worth mentioning that in a GCHQ slide provided by Snowden, they admitted "Tor stinks" because they "can't identify all users all the time, but can identify some users some of the time." — GCHQ/NSA really appreciates docile/ignorant users who stick with plain ol' HTTP so they can be identified all of the time.
I transfer several GB/day via Tor, and an order-of-magnitude more of encrypted BT traffic daily; I like to think that as an individual, I'm providing a substantial level of cover for people whose lives/freedom depend on the integrity of their encrypted connections: Journalists, dissidents, whistle-blowers, people in fear of being attacked by the corrupt DEA/BATFE/FBI/etc., gangs of thugs-in-uniform with their "parallel construction," planted evidence, personal vendettas, etc., a danger to which everyone within their reach is vulnerable to, provided they're not among (or sufficiently connected to) the "ruling class:" political elites, the very rich, etc., plus LEOs themselves. No one in this vast under-class is immune to false accusations, wrongful conviction, and having their lives destroyed by the violently aggressive US injustice system.
I'm also hoping to help protect other people who, like myself, simply don't enjoy having our human right to privacy, or our Fourth Amendment rights against unwarranted collection/examination of our private data being violated by criminal voyeurs in government, nor commercial entities that I paid to deliver data, not to examine/profile/monetize it (then turn around and sell it to the government).
... they're subject to a very stern reprimand (on the merits on not getting caught), and for the most egregious offenders, the possibility of paid vacation and/or reassignment.
From what I seem to recall reading, many of them were fired.
I was wrong; some were suspended without pay. Some resigned. I didn't read anything about anyone getting fired, and despite the violation of federal laws that occurred in all instances, DOJ chose to prosecute in none of them.
No one got fired; only resignations, suspensions, reprimands, pay-cuts, and the like.
This thing reeks. (I wouldn't normally be fooling with this NSA garbage, but since this is cold fjord discussion, we're using the "official" stuff approved for public consumption here — not the gold Snowden brought us. Snowden's set likely didn't include material about abuses of our ill-gotten private data, as there was no need for such documentation to exist then.)
The last line is telling: "I hope that this information satisfies your request." Supposing this information didn't satisfy the senator's request? I think the Inspector General would need to "catch" more violations, but not so many as to imply that the abuse is rampant.
Meanwhile the NSA agents are using their dragnet of all of the worlds communications to do what? Loveint, the NSA agents are using their wiretaps to spy on their loved ones, neighbors, crushes, and anyone they want.
About 1 person per year has been caught doing that if you read the reports.
You're right, NSA's internal oversight catches very few abuses. If only they hadn't confessed, they wouldn't have gotten "caught." Instead, they're subject to a very stern reprimand (on the merits on not getting caught), and for the most egregious offenders, the possibility of paid vacation and/or reassignment.
I'm not going to mark that down as a major threat.
So, this shouldn't affect NSA's budget or ability to continue business-as-usual, in other words. No wonder they released that report — it wasn't a major threat, it was limited hangout.
Until the crust becomes unstable, causing a massive extinction level erruption and consuming our stargate.
Yes, but we won't need the power plant following an ELE — this power plant would be self-decommissioning at the exact moment we're finished using it. Also, couldn't this power plant potentially extend its (and our) own service-life (should this be the risk that does us in...) by transferring energy from the caldera in a less abrupt manner?
Slashdot Mirror
If this is a propagandist's attempt at a smear-piece, it's bad one.
You know I actually didn't realise that it was meant to be a smear. I mean Snowden was a whistleblower. One expects whistleblowers to release information that they're not "supposed" to which often involves getting information they're not "supposed" to have.
I agree with you, and it certainly didn't lessen my opinion of Snowden. I admit that I only assume it was meant to be a smear-piece against Snowden, based on its "sources" (or lack thereof,) and the identity of the submitter — cold fjord surely would not have submitted this unless he believed it would tarnish Snowden's reputation to a greater degree than the NSA's. Had those factors been absent, I would have assumed the focus was meant to be on the NSA's security failure and its vulnerability to social engineering.
What the FUCK is going on with this country?
It has made so many enemies, it doesn't know where the next attack may come from. So universal surveillance is necessary. Maybe make less enemies next time?
No kidding.
I'll get me coat.
No need, ol' chap; This is Slashdot, not El Reg. Stick around for another pint.
Google defines evil [...]
For the most part, I agree with this fragment of your sentence.
We have not heard Snowden's version of events.
We haven't really heard anyone's version of any alleged events; RTFA — the sources for this piece are literally referred to as "sources."
If this is a propagandist's attempt at a smear-piece, it's bad one. If the claims in this article are true, it's a greater indictment against NSA's security policies than it is against anything Snowden has done. What I see is NSA's propaganda/media relations contractor grasping at straws here.
Excerpts from Reuters "article:"
This garbage has the same quality sourcing as the hit-piece published by The New York Times and The New Yorker that spread unsubstantiated rumors claiming that Snowden had given classified documents (i.e., unpublished material) to Chinese and Russian officials.
It's not just sites -= it preserves warez collections too. Unfortunately.
What's unfortunate about it?
Currently, the only means by which these cultural works are preserved (in a form unencumbered by DRM, and thus easily usable by current and future generations) are a) peoples' personal collections, with distribution and redundancy provided by file-sharing networks, b) web sites that host them, which are ephemeral in nature due to low funding and persistent legal attacks, and c) copies of those sites maintained by archive.org.
For-profit copyright holders that create these works have a perverse incentive to ensure their works do not survive beyond the period during which they hold a work's copyright, nor beyond the time during which the work is netting them sufficient profit. In other words, it is in the interest of a for-profit entity to have all copies of their works wiped out as soon as copyright or sufficient profitability ends — whichever comes first. I believe that this is contrary to the interests of society as a whole, and I do what I can to help perpetuate the preservation and availability of works that would otherwise be destroyed due to legal or financial incentives.
To provide just one example of the custodial role of file-sharers: I find it very unlikely that the file-sharing community would ever collectively "lose" some portion of old Doctor Who episodes — as, for the segment of society that participates in file-sharing, those episodes are artifacts of cultural significance, while for the copyright holder(s) they are mere consumer products, destined to be replaced (as opposed to added to) by other products at their whim.
[...] then of course that fruit company [...]
App-pull?
"have their crayon promptly confiscated until they can be good little liberals."
But we have a liberal in power.
He talked a lot of shit about the previous administration only to be worse.
Obama — a "liberal?" Heh... no. He's a right-authoritarian.
As Cornel West observed, a "Rockefeller Republican in blackface."
Obama may have run on a somewhat leftist platform in 2008, but that's no "liberal" in the White House.
Funny how Liberals pretend to care about right and wrong, but will create a police state if you give them the chance.
Left and right governments around the world both create police states — what they have in common is authoritarianism, not liberalism (or conservatism).
I'm curious why Snowden is doing this now. The domestic revelations were very important, and I thank him for them. These foreign revelations are another story. I doubt they do any harm, or at least no more than finding out that the sun rises in the east. But why? Does he think these are a big deal? Does he just want revenge? Or (one to be hoped for) he just wants to keep making noise about the NSA until something is done about the domestic situation. Inquiring minds want to know.
I think it's worth remembering that ever since (or prior to) Russia granted Snowden's request for asylum, the press has been in control of the manner in which Snowden's material is published. No new leaks (by Snowden) was a condition of Russia's for granting his request for asylum.
[I]f you gave half a shit you would google it yourself.
Protip: I found them by googling [...]
I give a shit, but I use a web search site that isn't provided by a repeat-violator of privacy laws, and a known NSA/GCHQ-collaborator. They exist — you just need to give a shit about your privacy*: https://prism-break.org/#en (See under "Web search.")
* Maybe you don't give a shit... I don't know — I'm just letting you know that there are less-intrusive alternatives.
I really don't believe the TSA or any other intel agency [...]
A quality post, but I think you meant to write NSA; TSA is among USA's leading unintel agencies.
I've been trying to do that as well. I wrote an essay articulating what I think the major problems are and some possible solutions (including term limits for all of congress, banning lobbying money from the system, and removing the parties from control of the election process). The first step was taking back control of our elections, and I was going after the League of Women Voters to get involved with the goal of having them moderate the debate process again. They were completely apathetic to the idea, I frankly don't even know if they read the essay. It isn't even very long. Apathy is the major thing threatening this country, no one cares about anything that goes on as long as it doesn't directly affect them. The politicians are in office for one reason: to stay there. And people will keep voting in the same people because those are the options that get presented to them. It's hard to find any momentum in a push to get that changed.
Thank you, both for or your reply and for your efforts towards the goals that we share.
LWV seemed like an ideal recipient for your essay — it must have been disheartening to have been ignored by them, and I'm sorry to hear that that's what happened. Hopefully, voters will be more receptive to third-parties in the future, due in part to the potential disillusionment caused by the similarities between the Bush II and Obama administrations.
I'm sure I could learn something new from someone who shares in the idea of disrupting the strangle-hold that the corrupt and collusive Democrats and Republicans have on our elections — or, at least, persuading fewer people to waste their votes on "(lesser) evil." Thus, I'm very interested in reading your essay, if you'd be so kind as to provide a means for me to do so.
FYFA:
Sounds legit. Must be the same "two US intelligence officials" that told The New Yorker and The New York Times that, somehow, they "knew" Snowden released information (like his passport?) to Chinese and Russian officials.
This is just another PR smear-piece sponsored by the IC. Besides, we already know that blowback from genuinely dangerous boogeymen in planned using couriers.
He gave aid and comfort to the United States' enemies — the American people? Because he told us about the crimes being committed against us on our own dime?
What crimes specifically? If crimes have been committed who has been arrested, charged and convicted? Perhaps you are basing your opinion on the "facts" from television (or slashdot as it may be).
What crimes? The mass, unwarranted surveillance of the US population, in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution.
Why are you expecting there to be arrests or charges? Do you think that if the Executive branch is willing to blatantly ignore the limits on its power, — as defined by the Constitution — that it's going to charge itself when it's caught violating the Constitutional rights of the US populace? You seem to be under the impression that the federal government is still operating within the limits of the Constitution; clearly, that is not the case.
Why do you assume that the Democratic and Republican parties would allow him to participate in their presidential election process?
We need to vote those crooks out, and keep 'em out. We already have better left and right parties to replace them: Green and Libertarian.
I'm well aware that achieving that may be an insurmountable task, but it's what I'm after, regardless of how the deck is stacked, and I'm never going back.
I have yet to meet a citizen that considers him a traitor...
Now you just did. Snowden is a traitor [...]
He gave aid and comfort to the United States' enemies — the American people? Because he told us about the crimes being committed against us on our own dime?
Is this belief based on enjoyment of being ruled by authoritarian criminals, hatred of the US Constitution, basing your opinion on the "facts" from television, or something else? Are you a powerful criminal, such as a mob boss, who empathizes with the law-breakers drunk on the power they have over the rest of us?
[...] and will eventually pay...
He's already paid — he had to abandon his home, friends, and family in order to report serious crimes being committed against us by our government, so that we'd be able to defend ourselves, demand accountability, and try to restore the rule of law, as based on our Constitution.
By the way, you're not really a "citizen" anymore, but something more akin to a subject who's being criminally victimized by your own government — or you're in on it, or suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Hell if I know what's going on in your head... I'm glad that I was informed about these criminal activities being committed against us using our own tax dollars, and have the self-determination and soundness of mind to put that information to use. You use it to bellyache about the messenger being a "traitor"; well, look in the mirror, buddy. If you support the criminals in power, you're closer to being a traitor than Snowden is. It seems to me you'd shit on the US Constitution because those entrusted to uphold it tell you it's the right thing to do. You should try reading it first.
There's nothing I could do to repay my debt of gratitude to Ed Snowden. Instead, what I do is I try to inform others about these ongoing crimes, tell them how they can protect themselves somewhat, and try to explain why the Democratic and Republican parties are for the most part criminal enterprises with our interests at the bottom of their agendas, so that they might find a more honest parties' candidates they might not have previously considered voting for.
Says all those people who like to speed. As soon as you or someone you love gets killed or injured by a speeder, your tune will change.
If I have loved-ones accidentally killed by a person who takes Zoloft, didn't get enough sleep, was stressed by divorce proceedings, was late for work, was perhaps going a little over the speed limit, and crossed the center-line... How should I change my tune then? Which thing(s) should I go into a moral panic or rage over? What new law (preferably named after my lost loved-one) should I demand in order to restrict peoples' behavior and liberties, "so something likes this never happens to anyone else?"
Maybe — as someone who's lost three loved-ones near-simultaneously to another driver — I should just keep in mind that about 600 people die on US roads and highways each week, and oftentimes things don't go the way I'd like them to.
This. Not only that, this is a clear case where he SHOULD be, if not arrested, at least fined heavily. This is clear cut reckless driving; speed limits are posted to keep the public safe. Stunts like this should not be pulled at the potential expense of other drivers on the road. We're all beholden to the same laws, whether you're trying to break a record or not.
I don't buy into this philosophy of punishing people for "crimes" based on arbitrary risks of things that could, but did not occur — and they are most certainly arbitrary: Texting-while-driving is illegal, but adjusting-the-stereo-while-driving is not, nor are any of the following "risky" activites illegal when performed while driving: putting on makeup, talking to passengers, turning around to yell at ones' kids, solving a crossword puzzle, driving after having had poor-quality or inadequate sleep, driving while having to taking a piss, driving outside of the envelope of peak physical and mental human performance conditions, and so on. That these activities are legal while driving represents a gaping hole in the philosophy of writing and enforcing laws based on risks.
Another example, taking risk-based vehicular "crime" close to its logical conclusion: Clearly, it would be safest for there to be only one car on the road at a time, or to enforce a half-mile vehicle-separation distance. This would eliminate nearly all multi-vehicle collisions; by driving near, or (even worse) towards me, you put my life at risk! This is unreasonable, and impossible to enforce in a consistent or productive manner. What is reasonable, is to make it a crime to cause damage to people or property by way of negligence — but, we already have that. The rest — these "risk-crimes" — are all instances of moral panics, cash-grabs, power-grabs, and authoritarianism run amok — "for our own good." No, thanks. If someone actually hurts someone else, that's something else entirely, and worth having the laws we have against.
You wouldn't have even known this event had occurred, had he not come forward, because there were no victims. This guy hurt no one, and in my opinion deserves no penalty.
[N]obody cares about the NSA spying on me (I'm sure someone is).
I care about the NSA spying on you (yes, you), but I can't stop it. I tell people about it, (because the major domestic "news" corporations* don't/won't in a meaningful way), and I tell people what they can do to help protect themselves and others (to some degree) — and I do those things whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself: https://ssd.eff.org/
* Except for PBS, although (as I'm certain you're aware) the differences between PBS and those other sources are vast. I watch nearly every episode of Frontline; it seems to be our only televised source of proper, in-depth investigative journalism — and they seem to be only domestic broadcaster with the guts to dig into harmful/corrupt/malfeasant government activities that affect ordinary "viewers like you," and ask tough questions without regard for D/R partisan bullshit, and so on. They did an episode on NSA's domestic surveillance in 2006, which I seed perpetually on BitTorrent (in addition to their episode on bullshit forensic pseudo-science).
That was hilarious; thank you. :o)
It's problematic if becomes some niche thing like Tor, which the NSA knows to zoom in to, as the people with something crucial to hide might be found there.
That's why one of the goals of the anti-surveillance movement is to increase Tor participation — the bigger it is, the better the protection (probabilistically-speaking) afforded to each participant. I use Tor (plus DNSCrypt) for everything I can, except for BitTorrent payload data... (For that, I use forced-RC4-160; unlike "plain" BT encryption, encrypts the payload in addition to the header. Yes, RC4 is very weak (even "broken"), but it's still a hassle for Eve compared to plaintext). It's worth mentioning that in a GCHQ slide provided by Snowden, they admitted "Tor stinks" because they "can't identify all users all the time, but can identify some users some of the time." — GCHQ/NSA really appreciates docile/ignorant users who stick with plain ol' HTTP so they can be identified all of the time.
I transfer several GB/day via Tor, and an order-of-magnitude more of encrypted BT traffic daily; I like to think that as an individual, I'm providing a substantial level of cover for people whose lives/freedom depend on the integrity of their encrypted connections: Journalists, dissidents, whistle-blowers, people in fear of being attacked by the corrupt DEA/BATFE/FBI/etc., gangs of thugs-in-uniform with their "parallel construction," planted evidence, personal vendettas, etc., a danger to which everyone within their reach is vulnerable to, provided they're not among (or sufficiently connected to) the "ruling class:" political elites, the very rich, etc., plus LEOs themselves. No one in this vast under-class is immune to false accusations, wrongful conviction, and having their lives destroyed by the violently aggressive US injustice system.
I'm also hoping to help protect other people who, like myself, simply don't enjoy having our human right to privacy, or our Fourth Amendment rights against unwarranted collection/examination of our private data being violated by criminal voyeurs in government, nor commercial entities that I paid to deliver data, not to examine/profile/monetize it (then turn around and sell it to the government).
... they're subject to a very stern reprimand (on the merits on not getting caught), and for the most egregious offenders, the possibility of paid vacation and/or reassignment.
From what I seem to recall reading, many of them were fired.
Here's the report: https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/grassley_letter.pdf
I was wrong; some were suspended without pay. Some resigned. I didn't read anything about anyone getting fired, and despite the violation of federal laws that occurred in all instances, DOJ chose to prosecute in none of them.
No one got fired; only resignations, suspensions, reprimands, pay-cuts, and the like.
This thing reeks. (I wouldn't normally be fooling with this NSA garbage, but since this is cold fjord discussion, we're using the "official" stuff approved for public consumption here — not the gold Snowden brought us. Snowden's set likely didn't include material about abuses of our ill-gotten private data, as there was no need for such documentation to exist then.)
The last line is telling: "I hope that this information satisfies your request." Supposing this information didn't satisfy the senator's request? I think the Inspector General would need to "catch" more violations, but not so many as to imply that the abuse is rampant.
Meanwhile the NSA agents are using their dragnet of all of the worlds communications to do what? Loveint, the NSA agents are using their wiretaps to spy on their loved ones, neighbors, crushes, and anyone they want.
About 1 person per year has been caught doing that if you read the reports.
You're right, NSA's internal oversight catches very few abuses. If only they hadn't confessed, they wouldn't have gotten "caught." Instead, they're subject to a very stern reprimand (on the merits on not getting caught), and for the most egregious offenders, the possibility of paid vacation and/or reassignment.
I'm not going to mark that down as a major threat.
So, this shouldn't affect NSA's budget or ability to continue business-as-usual, in other words. No wonder they released that report — it wasn't a major threat, it was limited hangout.
Until the crust becomes unstable, causing a massive extinction level erruption and consuming our stargate.
Yes, but we won't need the power plant following an ELE — this power plant would be self-decommissioning at the exact moment we're finished using it. Also, couldn't this power plant potentially extend its (and our) own service-life (should this be the risk that does us in...) by transferring energy from the caldera in a less abrupt manner?