251–260 of 501 posts
Snowden is a national hero. Period. I don’t care what any one thinks otherwise, but we would be a more authoritarian and fascist place without Snowden, Schwartz, (whom YC funded and he was suicided), Manning etc So fuck the #pedopaths and fuck anyone who is against any of the above and fuck you YC for being against truth. This is what killed Aaron Schwartz https://drop.space/watch/amazing-polly-epstein-stories-you-w.…
Swartz
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Snowden's case, he was a contractor and the specific whistleblower law covering the NSA did not apply to him.
95% of what we think as "Federal workers" are in fact contractors. Look no further than Accenture and similar. So sure, there's whistleblower laws. But they're in name only, with no real power for those that work with fed stuff in day to day operations.
Something that never made sense to me in the Snowden case is how any of this works in face of whistleblower protection laws in USA. According to Wikipedia, the US offers these legal protections: > Whistleblower protection laws and regulations guarantee freedom of speech for workers and contractors in certain situations. Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation for disclosure of information which the employee or…
In Snowden's case, he was a contractor and the specific whistleblower law covering the NSA did not apply to him.
Snowden is a national hero. Period. I don’t care what any one thinks otherwise, but we would be a more authoritarian and fascist place without Snowden, Schwartz, (whom YC funded and he was suicided), Manning etc So fuck the #pedopaths and fuck anyone who is against any of the above and fuck you YC for being against truth. This is what killed Aaron Schwartz https://drop.space/watch/amazing-polly-epstein-stories-you-w.…
Personally I'd be interested in hearing you out if your manner of speaking was more intellectual.
This may actually be good news. Somebody might have determined that it's not worth the political cost to prosecute him publicly, so they'll press civil charges, slowly make the criminal stuff go away, then it becomes a "normal" lawsuit instead of such a hot potato. (I am freely speculating here)
"The lawsuit also names as nominal defendants the corporate entities involved in publishing Snowden’s book. The United States is suing the publisher solely to ensure that no funds are transferred to Snowden, or at his direction, while the court resolves the United States’ claims. Snowden is currently living outside of the United States." This is the actual goal here.
>Shaffer published memoirs of his time as a reports officer in Afghanistan in book titled Operation Dark Heart. Shaffer claims that the Defense Department attempted to preserve secrecy of revelations made by the book, by buying up and destroying all 10,000 copies of the book's first, uncensored run, before allowing for the release of a second, censored printing. Only Shaffer himself has offered this version of events, which are not in keeping with Department of Defense policies on the public release of sensitive information in print.
.
Yes, if the goal was to censor the book, the US would have tried to destroy all copies of it.
I bought the book, and I hereby commit to donating a large multiple of the price to an appropriate charity or Snowden himself if they win this suit.
It's not about going after Snowden, it's about going after the publishers of the book.
The excerpt I saw was about trying to enjoin Macmillan to transfer them any money they were giving Snowden & any agents, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
fuzz4lyfe > When you send a letter it does not belong to the post office while in transit txcwpalpha > Inspectors can and do inspect the contents... of mail txcwpalpha > ...for packages There's a scarecrow argument if I've ever seen one. Someone says A is 1. You say A isn't 1 because AB is 2. Sneaky. There certainly is an expectation of privacy in my mail CORRESPONDENCE (which is what this whole thing is about... com…
I did not say that A isn't 1. In fact, in my comment I specifically acknowledge that A is 1 (some types of mail are protected by the 4th amendment). Please do not try to construct a straw man. The point is that there is already a determination that not all items sent through mail services have an expectation of privacy. If we're drawing a parallel between physical mail and e-mail, this lends to the belief that such a…
> The law doesn't see a difference
Wow the cognitive dissonance in that is painful to read. Your argument sounds like "Shrodingers cat". It is and isn't at the same time. Ultimately though, it has to collapse into one objective reality ;)
> If you send a document through UPS, there is no expectation of privacy.
Yeah, again, no. This is directly contradicted by supreme court cases like:
"No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the Postal Service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution."
But then again, some people view laws (like 39 U.S.C. 3623, supreme court precedents or other such concrete objective reality as impediments that must be overcome to see reality as they choose to see it.
> you should read the words package/letter/mail/correspondence interchangeably.
> some types of mail are protected
Aside from the obvious contradiction, that's not how language works. You should really look up these words in a dictionary. It will help you communicate better.
In case you want to learn and not just teach people things you are making up: https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/nsa-surveillance-why-th...
P.S. it is a scarecrow because you are answering someone talking about Letters with what happens to packages. This is textbook scarecrow arguments, where you change what is said to attack a new, different argument than the one provided.
For those wondering, the purpose here (part of a multi-pronged approach) is to restrict his income and seize his assets. The less money someone has access to, the less power they have. This makes it harder for him to live day-to-day, restricts his access to experts who won't work pro-bono, and ultimately will hurt his criminal defense should he ever return to the USA. These guys don't fool around. Expect more pressur…
I strongly agree. Since Snowden himself is presumably in Russia, the U.S. government is effectively attempting economic sanctions against him. Their method is to scare anyone that might send him money with a lawsuit.