Twitter Fights US Court For WikiLeaks Details 268
An anonymous reader writes "Micro-blogging site Twitter is opposing an order from a US court to reveal the account details of supporters of WikiLeaks. Twitter has called on Facebook and Google to reveal whether they also received similar court orders. As part of the US government's investigation into WikiLeaks, a court ordered Twitter, in mid-December, to give details of accounts owned by supporters of the whistle-blower site. Twitter has protested against the subpoena and informed the individuals whose account information has been requested, while raising the possibility that other social networking players have received similar orders."
Another salvo in the war (Score:4, Interesting)
Most don't realize it, but this whole Wikileaks thing is the beginning of World War III. It is just very weird, very slow, and very online.
Re: (Score:3)
Please elaborate?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Russian Federation suffers worst information harvest in 55 years... Internet access and wireless riots in Poland. Blackwater invades... Cuba and Nicaragua reach registered ISP customer goals of 500,000. El Salvador and Honduras datacenters fall... Greens Party gains control of German Communication Infrastructure. Demands withdrawal of German references from Wikileaks... Mexico plunged into digital revolution... NATO dissolves. United States stands alone.
Re:Another salvo in the war (Score:4, Funny)
One theory is that US government will eventually decide to mend it's reputation by eliminating anyone who has a bad opinion about them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this IS the war (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it IS the war. It just isn't about militaries fighting it out on a battlefield; it is about governments and free citizens fighting over the rights of man.
Re:No, this IS the war (Score:5, Insightful)
And while the "free citizens" are fighting the scarecrow, their corporate masters are tightening their fist one squeeze at the time.
The true enemy sits in the boardroom; the lackey in the White House is simply not important.
Re: (Score:3)
This is one of those posts that makes you wish it was possible to reach 6 points.
Re: (Score:3)
he citizen that has a right to vote, is infinitely more powerful
That is, unless you are convicted of a felony.
Voting is a way to reach consensus between those who agree to heed its outcome. Corporations are at the mercy of the government less and less. Government is at the mercy of the corporations more and more. Let us also note that what is true in the US is not true or not as true in some other countries. I mean, most of the world's top economies are corporations [corporations.org] rather than countries.
Don't forget that things change. Because the majority of those in power
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another salvo in the war (Score:5, Insightful)
The only country at war over the cables will be the USA — and it will not over the leaked cables, but over how they have dealt with the whole matter. The US government are starting to embarrass themselves in front of an international crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's called soft power. Quoth an article from the October 24th issue of The Economist, which emphasizes the relationship between America and China, and happens to be the best of my bathroom reading material:
Culture Wars
On the soft-power side, China is slowly learning...Culture, said [Chinese leader] Mr. Hu, was of growing significance in the "competition of overall national strength." A cursory glance at the streets and shops of China suggests what Mr. Hu may have had in mind: the all=pervasiveness of American brands and cultural products, from Coca-Cola to (pirated) boxed sets of a comedy series, "Friends", from Kentucky Fried Chicken to Starbucks. America's intellectual drawing power is evident in the queues of students waiting for visas at the American embassy: in the 2007-2008 academic year more than 81,000 Chinese were studying in American colleges...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But given the political direction of America, things may soon become counterproductive.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Another salvo in the war (Score:5, Interesting)
How about a US citizen who's been arrested and tortured in Kuwait, and has been put in a no-fly-list by the boogie-man-fearing DHS, and for what reason? He's of Somalian origin, moved to Virginia as a baby, US citizen, but traveled to study to Somalia, it was too dangerous, so he moved to Kuwait. And the sharp-as-nails FBI/CIA/fucking morons thinks: he's Muslim, lived in Virginia (so did al-Awlaki), he traveled to Somalia (al-Awlaki's there!), he must know something!
So they got him, tortured him, he's not said anything because he knows nothing, and now they're (the US) stuck having committed crime against him.. and they still put him in a no-fly-list... well done, fucking morons.
Google "Gulet Mohamed" if you didn't know about this.
Re:Another salvo in the war (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey cold_fjord,
Are you white? Born and raised in the USA? Is there no chance whatsoever that you're involved with this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/09/giffords-shooting-political-violence-polarised [guardian.co.uk]
Jared Loughner, the suspect in Saturday's shooting spree in Arizona, was not working alone. True, the rampage apparently emerged from his confused, unstable and troubled mind.
Officials think he was not working alone - who knows, you could be that missing conspirator. Maybe just in case, you should be jailed and tortured until you admit to it. And even though they may find that he *was* working alone, better safe than sorry, right?
I mean, why not? It's not like you're being a citizen should afford you any special rights. It's for the safety of our children, after all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No actually.
Subpoenas are an investigative mechanism. Nobody goes to jail (directly) because of a subpoena. It is used to establish the “these are the facts” of a case. It is the traditional legal mechanism to shine light on something.
From what I’ve read, the US Justice department thinks it is very unlikely that they can mount an effective court case against Assange and Wikileaks over the publication of the leaks. There is too much precedence in the other direction (specifically the Pe
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Another salvo in the war (Score:4, Funny)
Bad analogy. Nothing wrong with masturbation. It shouldn't even be embarrasing. And if anything is leaked during the process, it would be a sign of health, not illness.
Re: (Score:3)
Your attempts to mislead your fellow Party members with such blatant lies have been reported to the Ministry of Love to arrange for your re-education. The Ministry of Peace assures all members of The Party that Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and that Julian Assange, like Osama bin Laden before him, are known to be high ranking members of "The Brotherhood" as well as advisors of the traitorous Emmanuel Goldstein [wikipedia.org].
A
Re: (Score:3)
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
What makes you a "supporter" ?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
That makes absolutely no fucking sense [thefirstpost.co.uk], whatsoever.
Reread what AC said, I think you hit it too quickly.
Well, if you're a teabagging Palinista, unless you're pounding down Assange's door with a torch and pitchfork ready to behead him, you're a "supporter".
AC was saying that "if you are Palin", inherently saying that if you are of the "palinite" mindset, an individual would be by default a WL supporter if said individuals are not donning torch and pitchfork (which is actually in alignment with your link you posted as a counter point), per the "palinite" mindset of "If you are not 100% choking the red-white-and-blue dick, then you are a terrorist."
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
What makes you a "supporter" ?
Quite a bit, it appears. I imagine that Twitter would have thousands of tweetists who would self-identify as Wikileaks supporters. But the request is only for a handful of accounts directly related in some fashion to Wikileaks.
Based on what information they're requesting and the fact that they're not requesting that accounts be shut down or censored, it appears to me that this is about simply being able to prove that certain people made certain tweets (the contents thereof they are seeking to enter into evidence)..
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
How else are you supposed to silence dissenting voices, if you can't identify them?
Fishing expedition (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it covers all followers [zdnet.com].
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC, they are requesting the followers for all of these individuals. If you have followed any of these people on Twitter, your name will be included.
Additionally, none of these people had anything to do with the leak. The leak was performed by a single man. A private in the Army who is currently being tried in a military court for leaking the documents where he will likely be found guilty and spend the rest of his life in prison.
These people are people who may have had some involvement in the publishing of the documents, or in supporting Julian Assange. The feds are likely trying to build out a profile to see if any of these assets can be leveraged against Assange (be it diplomatically or in court).
-Rick
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
What makes you a "supporter" ?
Page 4 of the subpoena covers it, but for the TL;DR crowd, you are a supporter if, FTA:
Among those targeted are WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Dutch hacker Rop Gonggrijp (whose name is misspelled in the subpoena) and Bradley Manning, the US Army intelligence analyst suspected of leaking documents to WikiLeaks. Also named in the subpoena are computer programmer Jacob Appelbaum (identified by his Twitter username, ioerror) and former WikiLeaks volunteer and current Icelandic parliament member Birgitta Jónsdóttir (left), who wrote the following in a tweet: “just got this: Twitter has received legal process requesting information regarding your Twitter account in (relation to wikileaks).”
They are going for high-profile participants who actually are suspected in playing an active role in the leaks.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, they certainly must be going after the NYT and the WSJ, eh?
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
According to Wikileaks themselves (Slashdot breaks cut & paste in Chromium, so no link):
Which would include people like me.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a very interesting read of the subpoena. I would even suggest it was a sensationalist interpretation.
Re: (Score:3)
I would agree. Even though I vehemently disagree with what the US Govt. is doing here, and even though I am a follower of @wikileaks myself on Twitter (merely for the same reasons as I follow news sites and the like: some of the stuff is interesting, though I have no strong personal opinion either way about Wikileaks), I struggle to see how the subpoena could be interpreted that way.
Besides, if the subpoena covered every random dude that's clicked on 'follow', i.e. people that haven't communicated directly
Imagine the money wasted! (Score:3, Informative)
I want Twitter to fight (and not just to warn account users, but to keep the data out of the govt's hands) for the principle of the matter; and I'm not strongly pro- or anti-WikiLeaks (I follow for pragmatic reasons, heh); but it would make my skin crawl if the govt wanted infos on all followers. The money wasted; the police state implications — good heavens, I'd make a time machine and go back in time and trip up revere's horse so the british could come.
Re: (Score:2)
...and I'm not strongly pro- or anti-WikiLeaks (I follow for pragmatic reasons, heh); but it would make my skin crawl if the govt wanted infos on all followers.
And that's my concern right there. Either Wikileaks has a lawyer with a novel reading of the document, they're simply incompetent, or they are intentionally misleading the public to stoke this exact kind of fear (and perhaps even drive additional donations). I fear that Wikileaks is leading a lot of well-intentioned people down unproductive paths.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a very interesting read of the subpoena. I would even suggest it was a sensationalist interpretation.
And you also believe that those 637,000 people will not be on some sort of gov't interest list? I know that speculation on my part is also "sensationalist", but really, do you think it wont happen? And do you think people should want to NOT be put on that list?
Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)
The part YOU apparently did NOT read. Sections B1-B3, which ask for information on those who have connected to or from the WL people's accounts (ie: tweeted them or received a tweet from them? Subscribed to them? Or hit the "Follow" button? Those ARE common uses of "connected"/"connection"/etc in the Internet world). In addition, Section B3 pretty much invalidates the anonymity seemingly being granted in Section B2 (or at least a large portion thereof).
And from there, a further fishing expedition can take place to request even more information on whatever of the 637K people the govt has further interest in.
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Twitter has said they would notify users if their info is being requested by a government before it is turned over. And that appears to have happened.
Did 637,000 Twitter users receive this notification? I doubt it. Did you receive one?
And BTW, there is no section 2. B. There is a B. 2., and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with you (unless perhaps you're in e-mail communications with them via Twitter). But B. 1. possibly could be construed to mean that visitors IP addresses provided. But somehow I doubt the Feds care.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, it's just those accounts. They'll analyze those accounts and all the tweets to find out which ones might be interesting and possibly related to the leaks (I believe twitter allows for direct messages that aren't public, and those are also part of the subpeona).
So no
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes you a "supporter" ?
Only a dirty Commie would ask a question like that. Who are your friends?
- Joe McCarthy
Re: (Score:2)
you spelled "assets" wrong.
Facebook (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine the millons of accounts that they will have to give details if they count everyone that pressed the "I Like" button on websites/news/etc that talked about Wikileaks.
Why don't the US courts just buy that personal information by the millions like other companies do when they want to datamine us?
Ok, some clarification. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CIA/NSA isn't going to waste harddrive space recording A. Joe Dotter's flaming posts about the government.
Exactly, those gigabytes of child porn for 'evidence archive purposes' don't come free, especially at contractor prices. $800 a GB for archiving hand-drawn lolicon takes precedence. To the cloud!
Re:Ok, some clarification. (Score:4, Funny)
"The investigators left 1,700 names on the list unchecked, defense officials have told Grassley."
They dont waste time looking.
As for this, welcome to the honeypot. Everybody who wanted to help "freedoms" is now on a list.
Did the other web 2.0 sites roll over like the CC and online retailers?
If so, will they go down the lists, name by name?
Re: (Score:3)
Hard drive space is cheap. Text takes up little space. And they have one hell of a budget.
Re:Ok, some clarification. (Score:4, Insightful)
I know we are all quick to jump to the conclusion that 'oh noez teh gubment wants internet ppls infos'
Well, they do, but I see what you're trying to say. However, you also just said, emphasis mine,
They aren't immediately just going after random Joe for saying "I like what those guys do".
Aren't immediately going after them? So you do know, then. The effect is to make the public at large believe that their info may be one day be subpoena'd for posting pro-Wikileaks(or any other kind of "subversive" speech) words online. There's nothing the feds can find on Twitter that they don't already know about those key players.
Also, for the first time in my life, I think I'm kinda respecting Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ok, some clarification. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that's great. It's just the 'bad people' that they're after: including an Icelandic MP. Considering this whole 'grand jury' process is going on in secret, why should we be confident that there's a due process behind deciding whose IP addresses are being fished out of Twitter?
I mean, call me an ass when I'm proved wrong, but the whole point of Wikileaks is that you have a drop-box to leak documents, but it's clean hands from the other side. They don't 'conspire,' they just receive the stuff and publish it. It's pretty open what they do and how. They're just desperate to pin a crime to pin a crime on Julian and his buddies, because that Espionage Act law is looking like weak beer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
None of the "bad people" are being arrested or charged with anything. They're just gathering info for the Manning case - using proper judicial channels, so far.
Re: (Score:2)
that being the case, they wont mind when twitter use proper judicial channels to say "no, we don't think we need to give you that information".
witch hunt (Score:3, Interesting)
Feels like a witch hunt to me. /just saying.
Plus, there's overkill — dont' they have all they need to convict manning?
Re:Ok, some clarification. (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you putting 'grand jury' in quotes because you don't think there is such a thing, or because you think it actually has a different name? A grand jury is actually called a grand jury, and there actually is such a thing. And the deliberations are secret because many times the grand jury actually decides NOT to indict someone, and this way the initial evidence or prosecutorial arguments put forth while trying to get an indictment aren't spread all over the place. Which is nice, if it turns out the grand jury doesn't find it even worth indicting you, right?
why should we be confident that there's a due process behind deciding whose IP addresses are being fished out of Twitter?
Because the validity of the evidence (and the means by which it was collected) will be evaluated during a trial and argued over by everyone involved
the whole point of Wikileaks is that you have a drop-box to leak documents, but it's clean hands from the other side
The implication, by the "hacker" that Manning was chatting with, is that Wikileaks may have worked directly with Manning to set up a place for him to dump the stolen documents. Essentially, helping him to steal them. The communcations surrounding the act of moving those quarter million stolen documents off of government systems and onto Assange's systems are what are in question here. If it turns out that there was coordination between them, that does indeed make a big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for FTFM. The quotes around 'grand jury' were, I guess, me admitting that I don't know what one is. It still seems like a broad fishing expedition in the hope of finding a charge to hang on Wikileaks, but I guess that's justified if they find that a real crime was committed by them.
nb. you only get to call me an ass when it's shown that Wikileaks 'conspired' with Manning, which would be stupid on their part. I'm betting they weren't that dumb, since that seems to have been anticipated in the way they
Re:Ok, some clarification. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
providing a place that stolen things could be placed = complicity?
brilliant! i'll get the St Kilda council arrested for providing a parking spot for a thief to dump my car!
Re: (Score:2)
Providing a special place, on request, in order to help a specific person that you know to be stealing classified documents, for storage during the act of stealing them? Yes, complicity. That's the whole point here
Re: (Score:3)
So by your argument, NYT, MSNBC, FOX, Guardian, and many other corporations are also guilty of the espionage equivilant of 'recieving stolen property'?
It's not like they don't know where the stuff is coming from. Or that they don't have a financial interest in seeing the information distributed. They are effectively laundering it, while turning a profit.
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
Completely fucking wrong. I want to know when government officials are considering that I am worth investigating.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that we've been using grand juries to consider indictments for centuries, right?
Regardless: do you really think that we should be telling, say, an insurance fraud scam ring everything that's being done to prepare a case against them, giving them time to destroy evidence? Should the guys running a chain of meth labs be informed of everything that an undercover cop is doing to shut them down, just as
Re: (Score:3)
In a nutshell, yes.
Re:Ok, some clarification. (Score:4, Interesting)
1- it is okay for Asange et.al. to maintain secrecy about their operations, but is not okay for the USA to maintain official secrecy to protect ourselves and supporters.
Yes and no. Yes, in that Assange's organization is not in the US and thus not part of US laws. They may maintain any level of secrecy allowed in the country that hosts them, or in which they are registered as a business (which I don't think they are). And Yes, some level of government secrecy is needed to maintain the legitimate operations of the government. No, in that Assange put himself in the open now, and thus some level of openness is probably the "high road". And No, the US government is an elected body, and should be held accountable to its citizens, as much information as humanly possible should be available to me and you, so we can make informed decisions about retain our current politicians and condone their actions, or the opposite.
2- It is Okay for the leakers cabal to steal and use (for their own financial gain, and to the likely physical danger of others)) US information/property,
but is not okay for the US to pursue how this was facilitated in a court of law.
Yes and no. First, "cabal" really? Physical danger, really? I have seen no proof of physical danger, nor have a read any articles pointing to direct human damage caused by any leak Wikileaks published. Your first clause is fallacious and highly suspect. Your bias is showing. The "cabal" did not steal any information, it was given to them by an individual or individuals (who may or may not be Manning). I have seen no information leading me to believe that Wikileaks "stole" anything themselves, thus they are, and should be, pretty much immune to prosecution on that front, at least. If publishing, or making the leaks available, is indeed illegal, then yes, the government should pursue them. In my opinion this would be a case where you support the law, even if its breakage was, arguably, ethical.
If the government, on the other hand, does its usual liberal reading of the law (and by liberal I mean twisting the interpretation towards its wanted goals, and not the fair spirit of the law), then the government has no real "right" to push it. They will, and it will have some level of popular support, but it still won't be right. Wikileaks, at the moment, is guilty of doing no more than smearing egg on our faces. I have a hard time feeling bad, it is bad to be embarrassed, but the best way of avoiding this is to refrain from doing things you know would be embarrassing, and not just prosecuting everyone bold enough to tell the truth. Perhaps if our government didn't act like an asshat, none of this would have happened.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd agree were it not for the following http://twitter.com/wikileaks [twitter.com] post yesterday: "WARNING all 637,000 @wikileaks followers are a target of US gov subpoena against Twitter, under section 2. B http://is.gd/koZIA [is.gd]" [redirect to PDF of the subpoena hosted on salon.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In and of itself, that post is misleading, at least as far as I can tell. I've read through the subpoena several times, and I see NOTHING about a request for information on supporters or followers of WikiLeaks, except for the few individuals mentioned explicitly. I think the idea is coming from Attachment A Item 1, "subscriber names", but that seems to be referring to the names on the accounts listed in the subpoena, not WL followers/supporters.
Am I missing something, or is this being overblown a bi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that WL is twisting it thus:
- Imagine that Twitter is a 'push' medium. A tweet from the WL account could arguably then be classified as a communication ~from~ the account, to other users, who have (by 'following') agreed to receive that communication.
- Then imagine that these pushed messages constituted a 'connection made to ~or from~ the account'.
- You then could argue under subsection 1 above that Twitter would need to reveal the 'destination usernames/IP addresses'.
But it's a very, very long bow
wikileaks (Score:2)
once the information is leaked to someone else, the information's dissemination is protected speech. The person who originally leaked the information may however, be liable for breaking the NDA they agreed to in order to gain access to said classified information. But considering that our government freaks out if you even say four letter words on tv, wikileaks is screwed.
"Opposing"? Where does it say that? (Score:5, Insightful)
I see nothing in there to indicate that Twitter is forming any kind of legal opposition to the order. I, for one, would be happy to see that they had. Government overreach should be resisted every time.
Yes, I believe this is "overreach", considering that nobody in the list except Bradley Manning has been accused of any crimes, and Manning himself hasn't even been charged.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, I believe this is "overreach", considering that nobody in the list except Bradley Manning has been accused of any crimes, and Manning himself hasn't even been charged.
At least according to Wikipedia, Manning has been "charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with violations of UCMJ Articles 92 and 134 for "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system in connection with the leaking of a video of a helicopter attack in Iraq in 2007," and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source and disclosing classified information concernin
Re: (Score:2)
It has been going around that personal information regarding all Twitter followers was included in the court order, but I read it last night and that is not so. Even so, I still believe that requiring all correspondence to/from WikiLeak's Twitter account is an overreach.
Didn't the US start off as the good guys? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We were never the 'good guys' we were always the slightly better than the rest guys.
Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
...and that's when it started to go horribly wrong - when you started to think you were better than others.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be a fool. The Americans have done plenty of evil, evil things. I'd still rather have been an American than Soviet, or Chinese citizen when I was growing up. Hell, add in pretty much any Central American, Southeast Asian, or African nation as well.
And this comes from someone who lives in America's hat with all the anti-American baggage that implies.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I grew up in the Soviet Union, and it wasn't really all that bad.
Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? (Score:4, Insightful)
Some reasons why American might feel the US is 'better' than other countries:
- Introduction of Democracy to the modern world.
That was France.
- Abolishment of Slavery, world-wide.
Actually you where the last Western Northern Hemisphere country to do that.
- Defeated the most powerful nation (Britian). Twice.
Ok you did defeat Britain, now if they where actually the world's most powerful nation is a bit open to interpretation.
- Accepted women as equal citizens
You where also basically the last Western Northern Hemisphere country to do that. Europe had Universal Suffrage long before USA.
- Defeated the Nazis and the Japanese
No, here we go again. I know you don't really learn history at school there, but see, the URSS defeated the Nazis. Ok? Repeat after me and tell your friends, the URSS defeated the Nazis. No other nation was actually indispensable to the defeat of the Nazis except for URSS.
- "Invented" electricity (specifically, AC current)
No, the AC current (nobody invented electricity just like nobody invented light) can be attributed to a variety of names: Guillaume Duchenne - French, Lucien Gaulard - French, Nikola Tesla - Serbian, Sebastian Ziani de Ferranti - English/Italian. And in all these names you don't see a single American, now do you?
- Built the Bomb.
Yes you did. Congratulations for building something you used to kill more than half a million civilians. I bet you should be really proud about that one, just like whoever invented slavery for instance should be proud about it.
- Put a man on the moon.
Yup, and that one a great one I have to admit.
- Invented the microprocessor and the Internet
Yes, you also did that.
So basically you have 5 out of 9 of your "American" accomplishments completely wrong, 1/9 (the bomb) is simply no thing any sane person would be proud about, other 1/9 is just not factually correct. So basically you have 2 / 9 right. Congratulations. And congratulations to your fantastic educational system that seem to teach you history very well. No wonder you are so proud of yourselves, you don't know crap about history and are brainwashed since childhood to think you are the best at everything while in the rest of the developed world we tend to learn facts at school.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Man what is happening over there in the US? Didn't you guys start off as the good guys? When did it all start to go so horribly wrong?
When they relized there was more money to be made the other way. Same for just about every other country. We all like to be "nice" and "good" until we do it for long enough to work out that there is a limit to what can be done wearing those clothes. At some point it becomes too easy to pop on another outfit to keep the profits and power rising at the same percentages.
Re:Didn't the US start off as the good guys? (Score:5, Insightful)
Man what is happening over there in the US? Didn't you guys start off as the good guys? When did it all start to go so horribly wrong?
When we found out someone already lived here.
Re: (Score:3)
When we found out someone already lived here.
A positively Churchillian response.....
Ward Churchill, to be specific. [insidehighered.com] If we are going to have that, then we should have some Horowitz.
Re: (Score:3)
Extreme and batshit insane to get attention as he is, Ward Churchill is pushing for something closer to George Washington than your
Re: (Score:3)
But the good/top families did start in very evil ways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Man what is happening over there in the US? Didn't you guys start off as the good guys? When did it all start to go so horribly wrong?
No, the US stated off as a bunch of terrorists in the 1770s. It took a long time to earn Good Guy status. The real respect came from WWII and its aftermath.
Sad that the respect is being squandered.
Re: (Score:3)
Man what is happening over there in the US? Didn't you guys start off as the good guys? When did it all start to go so horribly wrong?
Well, I would say that starting by the mass genocide of the native population of a whole continent doesn't classifies as "starting as the good guys". But ok.
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not wearing a condom while tweeting? Judging by some tweets.....
Twitter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have new found respect for Twitter.
Slashdot must now inform you that they have been subpoena'd by the US courts for the account details of anyone who supports Twitter.
McCarthy is laughing in his grave (Score:2)
Very Smart, Twitter - they sniffed your MTA? (Score:2)
How exactly hard would a have been for the government to anticipate this notification, and dump the traffic outta Twitter's mail servers, and run a quick search for "Oh, by the way, we're just warning you the government is after you", and then cross check the emails to mine personal identifiers?
Not hard, methinks.
Re: (Score:2)