USA Today Names Edward Snowden Tech Person of the Year 228
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from the USA Today tech column: "...But until a lone information-technology contractor named Edward Snowden leaked a trove of National Security Agency documents to the media this summer, we didn't know just how much we'd surrendered. Now that we do, our nation can have a healthy debate — out in the open, as a democracy should debate — about how good a bargain we got in that exchange. For facilitating that debate, at great risk to his own personal liberty, Snowden is this column's technology person of the year for 2013."
USA Today (Score:5, Informative)
Re:USA Today (Score:5, Insightful)
What are the corrupt power-mongering double-talking ghouls gonna do? "Oh yeah, we're the bad guy. Sue us" ?
We all know that already (Score:5, Insightful)
What are the corrupt power-mongering double-talking ghouls gonna do? "Oh yeah, we're the bad guy. Sue us" ?
They do not need to tell us.
We already know.
Re: (Score:2)
And even if we didn't know, if they really and truly had changed their ways and could honestly say they were good -- We still couldn't trust them. [wikipedia.org] Once you find out a spy is a double agent, you don't ever trust them again.
Re:USA Today (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"The Media". It is a double edge sword. But never forget that "freedom of the press"'s more literal interpretation equates to "freedom of the media". Unless you give others the freedom to spin things their way, the better angels won't get a voice.
Re: (Score:2)
We elect people with the expectation that they will uphold the Constitution. Increasingly of late, they have not done so.
That is not the fault of the voters. The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the elected politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong. We reelect them despite what they do. It is the voters' fault for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier to reelect the evil that you know rather than risk the evil that you don't know.
Especially when the evil that you know has so much money and is so vocal about saying how much more evil the other guys are.
Re: (Score:2)
They tend to do that...
Hell, he should thankful he got out alive and without being tortured.
OOOOoooo say can you seeeEEEEEE.....etc
Re:USA Today (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . meanwhile, all USA Today employees can be sure that their emails are being read and their phones tapped.
. . . you have the right of speech in America . . . and now the NSA and the FBI have the right of free listen.
Oh, and USA Today can expect a tough audit from the IRS next year.
I'm guessing that 2014 will be the year of "The War On Surveillance" . . . but like all other "The War On" wars . . . it is doomed to be lost.
Re:USA Today (Score:5, Informative)
it is doomed to be lost
Which side?
The only way we could possibly lose is with continued apathy and stupidity. If we lacked those attributes we could defeat them in six months. People act like encryption is impossible or something. Push open source hardware, aggressively replace firmware with custom builds, mitigate as many possible threats as you can, and use the strongest encryption wherever possible.
Goooood news. With TAO being out in the open, and the US losing billions upon billions to its economy in the coming 12 months because hardware and software can't be trusted, you can bet your ass that the major players will be taking drastic action. Not as a PR job to the public citizen, no no no. It will be drastic action to convince me the person in charge of equipment purchasing that Cisco is still a good bet.
Why should Cisco care? Why should I choose to utilize them for public infrastructure, secure MPLS between financial institutions, etc. when I know they have been backdoored by the NSA? Especially, when the NSA is actually the least of my worries, but other governments and entities that would do harm to my network?
Kiss a huge amount of contracts goodbye. The worldwide consumers will most certainly be at least looking for other options right now.
Remember, the name of the game is NOT to deny them access to your networks from a full frontal assault from the NSA, but only to do just enough to raise the costs associated with mass surveillance several orders. The NSA can't get the financial resources to be approved for several orders more than what their budget has.
We can most certainly win.
The problem is that we will not even try.
Re:USA Today (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Correct! (Score:4, Insightful)
... who was Time's Person of the Year in 2001? Osama Bin Laden, naturally?... no, it was Rudy Guliani.
Remember that this choice was made a little less than four months after 9/11, and the popular reaction to the event was so bad that women in California were ordering their dogs to attack people who "looked Muslim" at freeway rest areas. Time is published from New York City, ground zero for the bulk of the attacks.
I suspect they figured that if they gave Osama the title there'd be another building brought down - by New Yorkers with sledgehammers.
Re: (Score:2)
USA Today reported on NSA's spying in *2006* (Score:2, Interesting)
Ironic, then that it was USA Today who first broke the story about NSA warrantless wiretapping and phone metadata collection ***in 2006***
NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls [usatoday.com]
From that article, again, this was REPORTED BY USATODAY IN 2006:
Re: (Score:2)
Is this a scenario for a movie The Falcon And The Snowden?
If not, you have a thumb big enough. We'll call you. -- Hollywood
Re:USA Today reported on NSA's spying in *2006* (Score:4, Insightful)
Ironic, then that it was USA Today who first broke the story about NSA warrantless wiretapping and phone metadata collection ***in 2006***
And they had... what evidence, exactly? "Inside anonymous sources" is not the same as thousands of pages of documentation. That old article had very few details, no proof, no names, and nothing that actually proved anything whatsoever. Snowden showed what was actually going one, that it was illegal, and exactly how far it went.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree strongly with your comment in general, but Snowden didn't show "exactly how far it went". He provided some proof of some amount of wrongdoing. But I imagine there is still plenty of wrongdoing that Snowden didn't become aware of, or acquire evidence of. But still, those wrongdoers are probably feeling a lot less secure in their deeds these days. And that is a win too.
Re:USA Today reported on NSA's spying in *2006* (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think you or the OP of this particular thread gets it at *all*.
It's not that we now know about the NSA and what they were doing. We most certainly did.
It's that we have FUCKING PROOF.
In 2006, I was saying much the same things. I had high hopes for Obama because I honestly thought he was going to give us justice over some of that telco bullshit. Of course not. I was naive.
What Snowden has done, and deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for, is give me CREDIBILITY.
Now when I have a calm, not so agitated, san tin-foil conversation with somebody now about security, I get taken seriously.
I'm being asked right now what it would take to raise the level of security for several companies. What chat software could we use that is heavily encrypted? What should we be doing to vet hardware?
Most of it is of course executives wanting their conversations to be discrete so it can't be used against them, but that is progress nonetheless...
At the very least now when I talk about mass surveillance I don't see rolled eyes and skepticism. I have their attention.
Thanks Snowden.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Read moar (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:USA Today reported on NSA's spying in *2006* (Score:5, Insightful)
It's proof enough that Snowden matters that we're talking about this now and we weren't in 2006.
Re: (Score:2)
Which aptly shows what the government actually is.
Re:USA Today (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet by the government he is named as traitor and fugitive.
And thus he rode off into the files of History.
History is full of people authority called scoundrels, but the people have loved them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear? -Yossarian Catch 22
If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Edward Snowden is a shoe in.
Of the untold numbers of spooks working in / for NSA, Ed Snowden is the only one who has the conscience and the courage to reveal the dastardly unconstitutional secrets of the NSA.
Thanks, Mr. Snowden, for what you have done for the country !
Re: (Score:1)
Did you see his appearance on Channel 4 [channel4.com]? He seems to have dropped a little weight - I guess being targeted by those the run the 'land of the free' amusement ride takes its toll :S
Sad that humanity hasn't evolved wholeness yet :'|
Not that I'm a particular believer in things religious but if we were to think for a moment about the line "The meek shall inherit the earth", these fucks have got to be running from the inevitable. Oh yeah, Happy New Year!
Re: (Score:2)
I had an epiphany recently about what that "prophecy" actually meant.
"The meek shall inherit the earth"
Ever wondered, especially considering our current trajectory, if what might be meant is that the world will only have the meek left, people having completely butt sexed themselves as a species?
It would be one of those awesome "twilight zone" style reveals at the end of the show, wouldn't it?
I am soooo hoping that is what was meant...
Re: (Score:2)
It actually speaks to humility.
Only those that are humble and gracious will inherit the Earth. Cocky, egotistical narcissists need not apply.
Which, let's face it. The majority don't really meet the standards for meekness in the bible anyways.
Don't worry. If you actually survive some sort of Armageddon and are left with the meek, they will at least be nice people.
Re: (Score:2)
It's seeming increasingly likely that the meek will all have been turned into food by the power-mongering ghouls.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what the common interpretation is mr literally minded.
I am postulating a hollywood end of movie twist grand finale big reveal in the super HD movie that is life.
Although I hear the book is better...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
The food in Russia sucks.
Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... (Score:5, Informative)
He seems to have dropped a little weight - I guess being targeted by those the run the 'land of the free' amusement ride takes its toll :S
It's actually pretty normal for Americans to lose weight after living in Europe for a few months. Probably a combination of diet and there not being a social phobia of having to walk more than 30 feet.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do they still serve those cockmeat sandwiches?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I understand you can get those on the outside, if you're missing them :P
Re:This could be avoided (Score:4, Funny)
The ketchup dispensers are serving lube and salt'n'pepper bags have been replaced with condoms.
Condoms? That's like eating a sandwich with the saran wrap still over it....
You mean "shoo in", of course (Score:1)
Mr Snowden is not being given shoes.
Re: (Score:2)
In Russia?
Shoes for Industry!
Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... (Score:5, Informative)
Of the untold numbers of spooks working in / for NSA, Ed Snowden is the only one who has the conscience and the courage to reveal the dastardly unconstitutional secrets of the NSA.
Actually, two other guys did; William Binney [wikipedia.org] and Thomas Drake [wikipedia.org]. Unfortunately, they went through official channels, so they got harrassed and prosecuted by the government, and without the massive trove of documents Snowden exfiltrated, they were ignored and marginalized by the major media. Their experience is what convinced Snowden that he had no choice but to go outside.
Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. But these two can now take some comfort in the fact that they allowed Snowden to see that official channels do not work. There never is only a lonely hero, there is always a need for some people to prepare the way. And humanity has never been kind or thankful to its heroes either. But I think Snowden understands that.
Re: (Score:3)
But these two can now take some comfort in the fact that they allowed Snowden to see that official channels do not work
They were beta-testers of whistle-blowing, performing important Q&A testing on the process so that the final release could make it out to the public without any major bugs.
Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
That was beautiful. I only wonder if we'll see the day when Snowden, Manning and Assange are granted freedom. And when the inmates at GITMO are allowed to tell their stories in complete detail, and we are allowed to hear them.
Re: (Score:2)
That was beautiful. I only wonder if we'll see the day when Snowden, Manning and Assange are granted freedom. And when the inmates at GITMO are allowed to tell their stories in complete detail, and we are allowed to hear them.
Please don't lump those two groups together.
Snoden exposed government lies and unconstitutional overreach, and I think he did a courageous thing which will ultimately be good for the country (in the same way that Firesheep was ultimately good for internet security).
Gitmo is full of really dangerous and nasty people who were most likely plotting to murder innocents for the cause of religious zealotry. I'd have a really hard time taking any of their stories at face value when those same people would have no
Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Gitmo is full of really dangerous and nasty people who were most likely plotting to murder innocents for the cause of religious zealotry.
That is a load of complete and utter bullshit. If I wanted to spend 5 minutes netsearching mainstream sources I could easily refute that. GITMO is filled with political prisoners, that have long since paid for their crime. Even if every one of them had Osama Bin Laden's bloodlust to kill innocent U.S. citizens, freeing them all would still be an enhancement to the long term security and liberty of U.S. citizens. Holding the GITMO detainees as we have, and I might add 4 years beyond Obama's day 1 in office signed pledge to get them the hell away from GITMO, ... holding them there is an absolute stain on the nation of the United States of America the likes of which only the terrabytes of revelations of Snowden can compete with.
Re: (Score:2)
Gitmo is full of really dangerous and nasty people who were most likely plotting to murder innocents for the cause of religious zealotry.
The charge them with the crimes they're accused of committing. If you're going to hold foreigners up to your principles and beliefs then it's insanely hypocritical to not afford them the protections that you believe people deserve.
I don't disagree that there are some very dangerous people held at Guantanamo Bay, but to detain them without trial for years on end means that the US government has lost every scrap of respect when it comes to "protecting peoples' rights"
Re: (Score:2)
I also agree there are likely some very dangerous people held at GITMO. And I completely agree with everything you wrote, so I'll just quote it along with this news story which hit just hours after my score 5 'release all the gitmo prisoners' post- (could be I subconsciously knew of the scheduled release, though the article mentions nothing of the procedural timeline or any events which triggerred this 'milestone')
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25558891 [bbc.co.uk]
"
31 December 2013 Last updated at 10:32 ET
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
Re:If ever there was a "Conscience Award" ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The NSA is a spy agency by charter. Spies can and do go beyond the letter of the law in order to fulfill their mission of protecting their country from its enemies... it would be shocking if they didn't.
This is America. Nobody is supposed to be above the law, especially the government.
Congress may not be concerned with the NSA's actions, but they've already proven themselves willing to trade away our freedoms wholesale so that they can claim to be "tough on terror" during the next election cycle. We need to hold their feet to the fire and make them reign in the NSA.
Re: (Score:3)
The NSA was acting within its constitutional bounds.
Only if you ignore the constitution completely and instead choose to appeal to authority figures and believe government propaganda.
he could have gone to a congressman
Would that have resulted in the American people becoming aware of their government's crimes? The answer is, without a doubt, "no." I applaud the fact that Snowden let the American people in on the specifics.
Re: (Score:2)
I applaud the fact that Snowden let the American people in on the specifics.
Can you identify the specifics that weren't known before? (excluding revelations concerning spying on other countries).
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but can you mention any specifics?
Re: (Score:3)
I think you need to legal lesson on the difference between the US and a common law country. Legal precedent means nothing in so much as the law is concerned. It is ONLY a guide for how other people have decided in a similar situation and at ANY TIME a judge can rule in a way that is completely against previous precedent (see the entire civil rights era for a long series of these rulings).
The only law in this country is the written law and, as criminal law goes, the only proper group to make any statement
Enough of these government shills (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to ignore another story and the FISA finding that the government was breaching the Constitution. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/16/judge-nsa-surveillance-fourth-amendment/4041995/ [usatoday.com] http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/08/22/fisa-court-ruled-nsa-program-unconstitutional-said-nsa-misled-them/ [firedoglake.com] That you're ignoring these smacks of a shill. The right and left are united on this. On the other side are government workers like yourself living a parasitic existence off the hard-working taxpayer.
> Snowden is a sellout who took what he had and likely ran to the highest bidder with the info.
Not a shred of evidence do you have. Now get a real fucking job, you piece of shit government shill.
Re: (Score:3)
To me, none of Snowden's revelations were particularly surprising. The NSA is a spy agency by charter.
Weren't you surprised by a revelation that a single person working at NSA could get that much data and walk away with it?
Re: (Score:2)
Greed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/court-declares-nsa-spying-program-unconstitutional-and-grant [freedomwatchusa.org]
Other open US court rulings will follow as the issue moves up the US courts.
The problem is the US unconstitutional aspect is very clear - legal precedents, 'interpreting", "events" do not undo the Fourth Amendment.
The good part is the US legal system has to clear on what it will do. Will the Fourth
Re: (Score:2)
You're comparing Snowden to Philby? The quality of your trolling as really gone downhill recently - I hope that you're not unwell.
Re: (Score:2)
So other countries are angry at Mr Snowden?
No, they're angry at the US officials that are trying to be the eye-in-the-sky in a world-wide sense. But since people in other countries cannot vote on American problems, these things always end up getting taken out on the American people.
Consequences more for World - USA (Score:5, Insightful)
In my view; the revelations have far more impact for nations in the World other than the USA (you know; such nations do exist; and are home to 20 times more people than in the US). But when the Internet is controlled largely by the US; and these revelations indicate even more erosion of other nations' peoples' rights; the debate must include the entire World. One fears that just like the US Presidential debate; the implications for the rest of us will be ignored totally.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, is the internet really controlled by the US? It certainly isn't in China. You can use the same methods they do.
Your rights are the job of you and your government to protect. There will always be people looking to abuse them. It isn't the duty of some other government to protect them. It's the job of YOUR government.
Trying to assert that it is the duty of the US to protect your rights - well there certainly is no precedent for that sort of thing in world history.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I'll bet that soon having said equipment will cause the companies insurance rates to rise to compensate for the known sec
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the NSA is intercepting all foreign communications that go through the United States is only news for the naive. What is news, is that their influence is so absolute it threatens the integrity of the largest US corporations. Their corruption reaching to the absolute depths of products and standards pushed by NIST, RSA, Cisco, Microsoft, and google is astonishing.
As a Canadian IT professional this takes hosting anything in the US completely off the table. Furthe
this is USA Today we're talking about (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The two aren't mutually exclusive. To use a car analogy, an inept and careless driver driving an ineptly designed and built car will be a threat to other road users.
Well Hell (Score:2)
Yep, he's jumping around like a five year old on Christmas morning.
Next in news. (Score:5, Funny)
The press and the people... (Score:5, Insightful)
The government however is not divided that I can see. They want his ass on a platter. Strung up, drawn and quartered with his parts sent to the four corners of Scotland as a message. This is telling in this day and age of 'partisan' bickering to keep the masses distracted with largely inconsequential issues. Patriotism is not serving in office. Or recording every bit of data you can weakening our country, technology and economy in the process, to supposedly protect us. It is not giving lip service to the constitution, while you wipe your arse with it by your actions.
It is about standing up. It is about saying wait, this is NOT what MY country is supposed to be. It is about being able to stand up to a Tory, or a Tea Partier, or a Donkey and saying "fuck you, give me my rights, give me my liberty, or give me death", to paraphrase Patrick Henry. It is not in cow towing to the powers that be, but resisting the ever reaching yoke of the powerful.
But we don't stand by and large. We listen to Fox news and MSNBC talking heads and nod. We scream at our football games or hope to see a blurred nipple slip on TMZ. We laugh at cat memes and snapchat sext our co-workers while the spouse is away. We wonder at the changes in the climate then get into our unneeded and wasteful SUV.
What happened to our spine? The one that beat the brits? The one that helped show Germany and Japan where they could put it when they wanted to remake the world into their bleak image? Why are we more interested in goatse, and goth chicks and godzilla than righting our government? Why can 10 random people not discuss issues without at least 1 to 2 people completely derailing any progress? Why do we continually bend over while those in power plum our innermost depths to their own ends?
I wish I knew the answers. I though many of these thoughts as a teen 20 years ago. Then I had the optimism to think that we were on the brink. That we would stand, that a revolution was imminent. That the way things were would be changed and we had the power to do it. I was cynical then, but had hope. Now I think I am a defeatist. I would like more than just a few people to prove me wrong. The Snowdens of the world are currently the exception that proves the rule. Why is this?
Re:The press and the people... (Score:4, Insightful)
People were more aggressive and less risk adverse in the past, and not as self-absorbed, but for the most part were never willing to stand up for what was right. For example, when Thomas Paine was in prison in France, the founding fathers left him hung out to dry. Nobody stood up to stop the genocide against Native Americans. There was a regional power struggle between the north and south US, which had different cultures, but poor southern white men did essentially nothing to help black men. America fought Germany because Germany declared war on the US, not because they were willing to fight Fascism, and the US did very little to help Jews escape. America fought Japan because they were pissed about Peal Harbor, not because of what Japan was doing in China. Very much of the domestic opposition to the war in Vietnam came from people who wanted to stay home, enjoy benefits of birth control pills, penicillin, and smoke weed, not because they had a more principled objection. I could go on.
I think its possible to understand a lot about "why this is", but we've got to be willing to give up our own vanity, and face the possibility that our ideals not only will not but can not be realized in anything like the form and time-frame that we may have hoped for. Our problems go very, very deep, its not like humanity just went off the tracks a few decades ago or even a few thousand years ago. Study animal behavior closely and you'll see that its all fucked up to, in pretty much the same ways. Maintaining idealism in the face of this takes an incredible patience, and a kind of courage. If we value courage, here's something to prove ourselves on maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. This post you just made has forced me to rethink a few perspectives I have about Founding Fathers and my presumed judgement that we were losing spine "these days."
And you are right; America's "spine" has always been a vain illusion -- it never existed.
This actually gives me hope, because we may not be deteriorating into osteoporosis, we just have to find a way to evolve into walking upright!
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've seen one too many movies about the glories of revolutions. I've read a bit about the phenomena. With few exceptions they share a common theme - they are bloody, cruel, and frequenly result in regimes worse than those they hoped to replace. So let's see what awaits in revolution:
1. I face death from battle, exposure, starvation, disease, etc. on an almost daily basis.
2. It is highly likely that at least one of my kids would lose their life. Not to mention that all of them would be pulled f
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so it had a few cliches in it.
But it seems to me that the GP has a point. I'm not old enough to know what it was like during say McCarthy's witch hunts and how many people stood up for what is right. Was it a very small minority while most people just went about their lives, or was there wide public dissension? I do remember in the early 80s that there was fairly active opposition to Apartheid rather than the current defeatist apathy. That was a bit different though because most countries had abando
Re: (Score:2)
Both I think prove my original clichéd conjectures. Some times I wonder if this type of inarticulate attack is really do to some deep seated inner loathing at recognition of on
Re: (Score:2)
You mentioned that "we don't stand up". As I see it, there is a lack of inherent and true empathy for each other and certainly no strong sense of union... as if we were all living under the same "roof". Why? It seems that it's by design, in part, and also a consequence of our own selfish tendencies as the short-lived self-aware (mostly) animals that we are.
A few things that are important, in my opinion, to consider around the fundamentals of ou
Re: (Score:2)
Communism was beaten, few people are starving, access to education is easy, there are no major wars looming and the world doesn't seem likely to blow up tomorrow.
There is a serious problem with the attitude of your original post in that you claim an exclusive right to criticize this "apathy" (and if someone gets annoyed in your head you call it "an attack" like you just did above).
Apathy is a choice! Furthermore apathy is a luxury
Huh (Score:1)
"we didn't know just how much we'd surrendered."
I find this insulting. Read FISA, read the Patriot act and related bills. If you interpret the language liberally(meaning as open ended as possible) then you will realize all that Snowden leaked was already known. And if you think they'd never do that, then you're putting your head in the sand, they don't pass laws for no reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing something is different from having the facts available for most people. There needs to be a catalyst that makes it clear to them. Snowden did just that.
Congratulations! Peace prize next! (Score:5, Insightful)
USA Today (Score:2)
I remember when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in my day, the *Russian* spooks defected *to* the *USA*.
Now get off my lawn!
Except that's damnably creepy when you think about what a change that is.
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't surrendered (Score:3)
That's the thing that I can't get past. We haven't surrendered anything. We haven't "traded" security for liberty. We haven't made any bargains of the sort. All of these "erosions" on our freedoms and rights have been perpetrated against us without our will and without our knowledge. They have lied and cheated and stolen from us our birthrights as humans as recognized and defined to us under the US constitution. And without the revelations, the world would still be living under the huge, thick blanket of lies.
Are we all expected to blame ourselves for "voting someone in"? This goes back futher than many people know and isn't tied to any one president or any one political party. We keep wanting to simplify everything to the point that we simply can't and do not want to understand the full scope of the disillusionment we are experiencing.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for this comment.
The last time I voted FOR a Presidential candidate, it was Dennis Kucinnich. I voted for Ross Perot instead of Clinton before that.
When choosing between Obama against a small gaggle of morons, crooks and fools, I held my nose and voted for someone I knew wouldn't take us far away from the Bush era policies. I don't vote FOR keeping GitMo open or making all treaties a joke with Drone assassination programs. I didn't vote FOR austerity measures when a simple, well funded public work
Re: (Score:2)
No, we blame ourselves for not taking to the streets.We have a list of grievances far worse than those found in the Declaration of Independence. By failing to do anything about them, we have surrendered.
Except that we're not a democracy. (Score:2)
Seriously. How many times do people need to be beaten over the head with reality before they actually acquire the correct information.
We're a democratic republic.
We have democratic forms of selection for various public offices.
What we do NOT have is direct rule by the citizenry.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. How many times do people need to be beaten over the head with reality before they actually acquire the correct information.
We're a democratic republic.
We have democratic forms of selection for various public offices.
What we do NOT have is direct rule by the citizenry.
"Democracy" is colloquially used to generalize any form of representative government in which power is ultimately wielded by the people, whether directly or indirectly, which includes democratic republics like ours. Frankly, I'm not sure the distinction matters except in an academic sense, since there really aren't any "pure" democratic governments operating in the world anyhow - it's a largely theoretical and wholly unpractical form of government at any sort of significant scale, for obvious reasons. So,
Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR (Score:5, Insightful)
Edward Snowden is a big a danger to the US today as the Soviet Union was 4 years ago.
No argument there...
Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit, the traitors are those in government ignoring the constitution and illegally spying on the citizenry. It needs to stop now.
Re:Edward Snowden is a god damned TRAITOR (Score:4, Interesting)
The internet being what it is I am rendered unable to decide whether this is sarcasm, irony and/or a troll.
So I decided to investigate what else you have written in an attempt to solve this mystery. I don't know as yet WHY I did this as I really don't give a flying fuck what your motivations are so that mystery will have to wait until I see my therapist next.
You have many posts listed as flamebait etc but also many listed positively.
So it appears you are very good at generating strong reactions from others. Unfortunately this does not really answer my original question.
However comments such as this: "lol Euro-weenies always finding an excuse to lick boot"
and this: "Conviction should be quashed and a full "royal" apology from the inbred German layabouts in Buckingham palace."
Lead me to finally decide that, based on a balance of probabilities, you are indeed a troll in this instance but, unlike other species of troll, actually possess the capability to write sensible and thought provoking comments. This does not make your trolling here better, but worse.
So shame on you.
Re: (Score:3)
if you've got nothing to hid (sic) then you have nothing to fear.
There are two great responses to this oft-repeated mantra:
I've got nothing to hide from those I trust.
or
I'm not doing anything wrong in the bathroom, but that doesn't mean I want the world to see what I do in there.
The desire for privacy doesn't imply any sort of wrongdoing.
Re: (Score:2)
To all you idiots out there, if you've got nothing to hid then you have nothing to fear. Edward Snowden is a big a danger to the US today as the Soviet Union was 4 years ago. He should be executed without trial.
Thank you for that brilliant insight into your psyche, Mr. Mussolini - by the way, your black shirts are ready at the cleaners.
Respectfully fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Come Wednesday, Snowden will be last year's news, and nothing of consequence will change. Meet the new year, same as the old year.
I've been wondering this too. Will Edward Snowden's revelations ever lead to a better system in USA? Usually I just hear Americans pointing fingers at other countries and saying "they are doing it too!". I don't know, maybe it's damn hard to start a revolution to change everything. But some day Snowden runs out of juicy documents to leak. Then things will cool down, people forget the whole issue in a few months and NSA gets to continue doing its same old job without interferences. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what I'm thinking:
The US keeps having mentally unstable people going into schools, malls, etc, and shooting up a bunch of people, before turning the gun on themselves. I realize there aren't really a lot of these, considering the population of the US, and the number of guns in circulation, but that's irrelevant to my point.
If we accept that these kinds of shootings are going to happen regardless, as long as you keep your guns, which seems to be the prevailing opinion (again, not saying it's right or
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe. But "locking the secrets up better" comes with a price in efficiency. Of course, the NSA can eventually bankrupt the US if it gets all funding it wants to have and needs to keep secrecy intact (hence huge overheads in getting anything done). Maybe that would be the best outcome and maybe even the one with the least casualties. If, on the other hand, they manage to establish a totalitarian regime in the US, that would be hugely more costly.