or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

That's a silly comment that adds nothing to the discussion. He did not divulge information to the UK Government.
It's not inconceivable that someone would want to expose what they felt was illegal government surveillance. It's inconceivable, to me, anyway, that they would go about it as Snowden did.
That's a non-sequitur and straw man rolled into one. No - it was a simple, pragmatic observation.
Why would you suppose that? Look back a few posts and you will see that I have significant reservations about the scope of the data collection, and that is why I stated above that I would have had no issue if Snowden had acted as an honest whistleblower. But two wrongs do not make a right.
The US Government is not going to compound the damage done by the leaks by revealing the extent and detail of that damage. You cannot read anything into the lack of that information.
Well thanks for the label. As I said - you are making judgements on very limited information, and have bought into his explanation for his actions, presumably because it aligns well with your government conspiracy theories. Had he taken the conventional whistleblower route then I would have no issues at all. What he did bore no resemblance to that, far exceeded what was needed even had he concluded that the regular whistleblower mechanism was not to be trusted, and ended...
Very amusing, but I don't think you are helping. Although I have to admit that my approach is not, thus far, demonstrably any more successful.
OK - well perhaps we can resume once you have found the time. I'll admit that I'm frustrated that you seem to find plenty of time to post erroneous material, and yet can't find time to read key documents first, but there is no condescension behind that observation. I'm also frustrated that you don't address most of my rebuttals, for example on your Sokal Affair argument to name just one. You just move seamlessly on as if it never occurred. I'm left wondering how you came...
I really have to disagree - he is nothing at all resembling a hero, even if he did usefully expose some overreaching activities. If you knew more detail of his actions I suspect that you might modify your viewpoint.
 But note that communications and communications metadata are arguably not the same, which means that it probably comes down to interpretation, and is part of the confusion. I'm pretty sure that the Fourth Amendment had little to say about metadata.
New Posts  All Forums: