31–40 of 82 posts
Sample size is 645 people - I don't think that's large enough to mean anything.
I can think of a word that rhymes with patriot for this guy. That said it was great to hear the congress and the heads of the departments agreeing that the entire process deserves review. There was zero animosity, etc at the finance committee meeting today. Very cool to see when the government is working, a dialog is happening, etc. But this guy is the ultimate sophomore, and if you ask me he was turned by China or j…
Hong Kong is actually the perfect place because he is able to play three distinct groups off eachother. The immediately obvious parties are the US and China who both are likely to look at this in terms of what he knows, but then there is also the large-scale concern in Hong Kong over encroachment by the Chinese government so he is able to play Hong Kong off China as well. It is one thing to play two groups off eachother but three gives him a significant chance.
Moreover an extradition request would be a total game changer. Right now it is a game of chicken. Extradition procedings woudl turn it into a game of national security assets and intra-Chinese politics.
The fear of him already being turned by the Chinese is another thing he is able to play off of.
What really pisses me off is that Democrats seem to support Obama in anything he does; half of them think this kind of shit is perfectly fine, likely because their team is the one doing it. Really sorely disappointing.
Surprise: press has large effect on what people think was actually leaked. I'm sure 99% of those interviewed have no idea what he actually leaked entailed. I'd be more interested in a study that asked people if they knew what they were actually outraged about. A majority of the insinuations of the original "leak" have since been retracted and those actually following the details of the story have no belief that there…
I said I had and she told me that she agrees with the government surveillance and told me Snowden was a traitor to the American people.
I said, "You support PRISM?!"
She said, "What's PRISM?"
People have no idea. All they know is Snowden, Snowden, Snowden...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you look on an international scale… I keep thinking about how in some Asian and Middle Eastern countries, the same things have been going on (if not more overt), and I wonder if their citizens have as much apathy as ours?
My experience is that everyone everywhere these days loves their country and distrusts their government. The question, as always, is how individuals and groups of people navigate the government and vice versa. The specific limits vary from one place to another but the attitudes seem remarkably stable over time too. For example in medieval Iceland, one of the major protections against unreasonable search and seizure w…
Personally, I find it hard to love my country (not even sure what that really means to me) or any country I've been in for an extended period of time. Maybe it is because I keep abstracting country back to ever changing lines on the ever changing maps drawn throughout history. Though, I'm not saying that there are some places that I wouldn't rather live over others.
>The question, as always, is how individuals and groups of people navigate the government and vice versa. The specific limits vary from one place to another but the attitudes seem remarkably stable over time too.
Maybe that's why it is easy for some individuals/organizations to play chess games between nation states for whatever (usually business) reasons? At least that's what is going on in my head now about the larger geopolitical landscape in relation to some national and some international issues…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd be more interested in a study that asked people if they knew what they were actually outraged about. To list a few reasons people are outraged: -Surveillance has been revealed that seems to far exceed what is authorized by the Patriot Act -The executive branch refuses to release the legal rationale on which it justifies the surveillance -Senior officials have lied to Congress about the scope of surveillance -Co…
Here is a summary of the Guardian story and what has been changed: http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-th... "Updated June 10 to include a quote from a follow-up article in the Post directly contradicting its initial claims and another observation after the release of the leaker's identity."
It seems the claims of the Guardian have not been edited, proven incorrect, or retracted. I haven't re-read their entire article, but it appears to be the same one that was initially published.
It appears that the exposé you linked eventually concludes: "According to a more precise description contained in a classified NSA inspector general’s report, also obtained by The Post, PRISM allows “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers." Looking at this from a process perspective and not a technical one, it appears there is little functional difference between this and "direct access" to servers. And it perfectly explains why the NSA presentation cut to the point: you get data from the company's systems without the company being involved.
It's up to the companies and the NSA to clarify things, but it appears the NSA slides are likely correct in terms of process, if not in technical terms.
What really pisses me off is that Democrats seem to support Obama in anything he does; half of them think this kind of shit is perfectly fine, likely because their team is the one doing it. Really sorely disappointing.
What are you talking about? Do you have any evidence for this? Or was it just some democrat you talked to who supported mass surveillance? You think the 30% of Americans who believe Snowden is a patriot are all non-democrats?
What really pisses me off is that Democrats seem to support Obama in anything he does; half of them think this kind of shit is perfectly fine, likely because their team is the one doing it. Really sorely disappointing.
Surprise: press has large effect on what people think was actually leaked. I'm sure 99% of those interviewed have no idea what he actually leaked entailed. I'd be more interested in a study that asked people if they knew what they were actually outraged about. A majority of the insinuations of the original "leak" have since been retracted and those actually following the details of the story have no belief that there…
My (very liberal) mother asked me today if I had read David Brooks' piece on Snowden. I said I had and she told me that she agrees with the government surveillance and told me Snowden was a traitor to the American people. I said, "You support PRISM?!" She said, "What's PRISM?" People have no idea. All they know is Snowden, Snowden, Snowden...
PRISM can't be dismantled, for the same reason no one on the planet has figured out how to dismantle nuclear arsenals. The other guy is doing it too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a summary of the Guardian story and what has been changed: http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-th... "Updated June 10 to include a quote from a follow-up article in the Post directly contradicting its initial claims and another observation after the release of the leaker's identity."
That's a summary of the Washington Post story and what was changed. It looks like the Washington Post reporting of this was a disaster. Not only did they initially publish language that was more sweeping than the Guardian, but they had absolutely no backbone and edited their story when companies said the NSA slides were wrong. It seems the claims of the Guardian have not been edited, proven incorrect, or retracted. I…
