Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not going to get into a flame war, but pretty much everything related to libertarians are freedom of choice. I strongly agree that mandatory vaccinations on a national level should not be required. As long as it does not harm me, I don't think I should disallow someone to do it. That is to say, I don't think I should, or society should pressure our beliefs on others. I would vaccinate my own children because it m…
But everything affects others, especially in this ever-more-connected-and-congested world. Standards are useful for computer, and for people. Libertarianism has attractions, but idealism only goes so far. I believe the Libertarian world would collapse in flames (or disease, or hunger, or congestion).
Pardon Snowden
391–400 of 814 posts
Re: Pardon Snowden
#392I'm still genuinely curious about what the intelligence community thinks of him, if it's bad, what are the arguments against him. I've heard Mike Baker on the Joe Rogan experience say that he did not trust Snowden one bit. In the intelligence world, it's common to be very cautions about leaks since foreign actors like Russia can really benefit politically from such scandal. It can be difficult to really know all the…
Re: Pardon Snowden
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
The MTA's "See something, say something" campaign in NYC always kind of comes off sounding dystopian to me.
I'd much rather inefficient, racially biased policing come from the population than an ML algorithm in Ft. Meade.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
It means an extremely opaque system of checks precisely in an area of the state that is particularly succeptable to abuse. That is a real risk to national security here. Contrary, I can see exactly zero potential for jeopardising national security by any mooderately sane law on whistleblower protection in this area. All whistleblowing is taking things into one's own hands at the risk of persecution, and here its only…
I think that's agreeable but you're just asking for legislation that results in a balanced outcome. In this case there was clearly a public good. There was also a massive national security compromise in the US ability to conduct surveillance. Which effects national security more in the long run strikes me as a difficult thing to speculate about. However in the short term I'd imagine every organisation of interest to…
> There was also a massive national security compromise in the US ability to conduct surveillance.
but, but that's the whole point of the exercise, isn't it; the curtailment of mass surveillance? I mean, we're talking about a public agency; it needs to act within a clear public mandate when striving to reach its goals. It is not an end in itself, so when it oversteps its mandate, its not in fact providing any public good, but diminishing it, and so hindering it in further action on this course is in the public interest.
So sure, having the public aware that it engages in mass surveilence and bulk collection on both its citizens and non-targeted citizens of the world more generally -- is inconvenient to the agency, but is a win for the public. And consequently so are any actions third parties then take to make its life more difficult -- because really it is the rouge party here!
Something seems upside down to me in this logic where obscuring the price you pay for a public service can be permissable simply because people expect some reasonable level of that service. And hence the scandal of realizing the true cost of that service, and the public finding it too expensive can be seen as a story that has two sides, merely because any limits that public may decide to put on the price naturally cause the quality of the service to degrade. But,but if the public isn't the one that decides on the quid pro quo here, who the hell is being served here anyhow??
Surely if its the public that's served by a public agency, then a person who uncovers that the agency is costing us way way more than is known and than it claims - even under oath to the congress for christ's sake - is a desirable correction, for no decision could even be made under false information.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#395Happy to sign the petition but not at this site. Is there a way I can send a letter myself to the president?
Re: Pardon Snowden
#396Snowden will not get pardoned, because (1) exposing illegal domestic spying was only a part of what he leaked, and (2) he admits that he specifically took the job with the intent to get information about NSA hacking of foreign computers to release to journalists in those foreign countries. See this comment someone posted on Reddit for details with links to sources: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/52k179/ed…
This arguments fails to see Snowden in context. Edward Snowden went to the press with revelations because he was aware of the experience of previous whistleblowers. Drake, Binney, Wiebe, Loomis, Roark followed the official channels and reported their concerns within the system. There was intense retaliation against them. They were arreested, fired and charged with crimes that could put them into jail for the rest of…
Re: Pardon Snowden
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A mode of thought I would expect in socialist countries, not the US... The United States government has done an excellent bit of propaganda to convince the bulk of the public that they are the most free people on earth. We salute the flag and sing the national anthem at games. We have the presidents' pictures on the walls of our classrooms. We chant "USA" at political rallies. But the government of the United State…
Which country would you suggest is the most free today? Not trolling, just wondering if I was going to move somewhere else, where would I go?
And no, I am not being facetious. People like to think of freedom as a scalar, but it's actually a vector with complex interactions among its various dimensions, one of which is the government.
That said, I am absolutely signing the petition. Ed Snowden put a lot more on the line by blowing the whistle than I am by signing.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#398I believe when you wrote "socialist" you meant "authoritarianist"? Please don't mix-up those two concepts
If socialism isn't authoritarian, that means that people can opt out of social benefits, own their own property and things, and not have to pay taxes to cover others' social benefits, right? Without going to jail, right? If not, then I guess we're talking about some form of authoritarianism. To talk about "socialism" in a sense that doesn't break the non-aggression principle (necessary for non-authoritarianism), you…
The same argument goes for the US. All developed countries have taxes and most people agree that they are necessary. I Besides, I don't feel Sweden is more authoritarian than the US because it has higher tax rates or more public services.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
In principle, yes you are right. However, there is only so much hedging and differentiation I can put into a post without turning it into an essay. What I wanted to say is "realsocialist" a la former Soviet Union or East Germany. I think part of the confusion is that I live in Germany, where socialist always means that kind of one-party authoritarian system. By this definition, e.g. Bernie Sanders would be a (left-wi…
In the UK, the Labour part is moving back (rejoining?) it's old Socialist roots. The flawed but gracious and honourable leader of the party at present has been a socialist his entire career, but could hardly be called authoritarian.
Re: Pardon Snowden
#400Maybe a naive question, but what would the risk be for me to sign this? I wonder if I (a US citizen) might get trouble the next time at the border? Or get a higher score in some database, that combined with other things might get me into trouble? Increased scrutiny from the IRS (which should have nothing to do with this, but "they" might say hell why not?)? Inability to get security clearances in future? Being target…