91–100 of 374 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good question. Actually, I'd love to see what happens if someone takes the same exact concept but instead of Snowden or a political figure, they take the bust of Mickey Mouse. Bonus points for a Vine of them covering it up while kids cry in the background.
Or how about an illegal bust of George Washington.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a number of users here who honestly believe that criticism of Snowden is the work of NSA agents and paid shills - so of course they feel their accusations are not at all gratuitously negative, but rather warning people not to be duped by the elaborate and subtle government psy-ops at work. Then again, I can't help but wonder why people bother asking if someone else is a shill, as if they honestly expect an…
I can see it serving to purposes. 1. It lets 3rd parties know you are suspicious. 2. You may get a revealing denial/non-denial. That said though I really dislike the atmosphere created by frequent shill accusations. It seems to rapidly create an echo chamber, where minority opinions are dismissed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NSA went too far by violating the constitutional rights of US citizens, both on US soil and abroad. I'm unaware of how you can go "too far" when directing sunlight on corruption and illegal activities perpetrated by an arm of your own government.
Say that a CIA field agent or team is found doing illegal and unethical things (it's happened before many times,) would it be "too far" to release the entire list of CIA field agents and their covers around the world to two journalists at a foreign newspaper because of that one group of agents? It absolutely would be and would potentially put shitloads of lives at risk. Snowden basically did the same thing with the N…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like they put it up around 6am and it was covered over around noon. I hope, for the sake of the work that went into the piece, that it isn't destroyed.
That's amazing. Now if only the public works department could respond to potholes that quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please do not downvote marcoperaza's post because you disagree with it. That goes against the spirit and intent of this site. Make your own argument to counter instead.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 PG said: > I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness. It's a bit weird to impose your own (admittedly popular) purpose of the vote buttons, claiming that your view is the true spirit and intent of the site, when t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good question. Actually, I'd love to see what happens if someone takes the same exact concept but instead of Snowden or a political figure, they take the bust of Mickey Mouse. Bonus points for a Vine of them covering it up while kids cry in the background.
Or how about an illegal bust of George Washington.
"Anonymous benefactor donates $30k statue to city park"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Sad to see that replying to yourself in order to whine about downvotes (and then deleting it) has made its way to hackernews from reddit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe they would've removed it, and until they did left it uncovered. Neither of us know what they would've done. Not sure what China or France doing things has to do with how we do things in the US.
Well I can tell you 15 years ago Giuliani would have been up there with a sledgehammer himself taking it down, holding a press conference, and vowing the harshest consequences possible once the perpetrators were tracked down. By that scale can we say that the state of democracy in the US is actually greatly advanced?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>He disclosed evidence of wrongdoing and illegal activity by the NSA, making him a whistleblower. The only illegal things he disclosed was that some NSA agents/employees illegally used their tools to track ex-gfs and stuff. All the rest is completely legal. The country had a public debating about warrantless wiretaps and congress wrote laws about it. The NSA follows those laws. He released the information because he…
> All the rest is completely legal. That's a bold assertion not borne out by the facts. Examples: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-deals-nsa-defeat-bulk-p... http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/indepe...
But 15 Federal district court judges have approved the NSA actions as part of the FISA courts. That a single federal district court disagrees isn't a huge deal.
The third party doctrine is very clear. Records about you do not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy. The judge who ruled against the NSA wants to change the law. Maybe the courts will change the law. SCOTUS has disfavored mass surveillance tactics in the recent past.
But right now, it is legal.