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.
He gave up a nice life making a nice living to expose what he felt (and many agree) was a crime being committed upon American citizens by their own government. It is only because of what he did that the American public is finally realizing that those who have warned about these acts were not tinfoil hat wearing lunatics after all. This makes him a hero in my book, and it's a lot more than I can say for the spineless politicians in Washington who have abdicated their duty to their constituents and our constitution.
It is people like you that pave the way for authoritarian governments to develop and turn democracies into police states.
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 up being all about selling himself to foreign governments. The detail of his actions make his motivations very clear, even if you don't know the background.
So we have your vote on releasing classified military info?
This was not a reckless disclosure of government secrets. Snowden took great care to work with trustworthy journalists and carefully choose what information to publish. The government has yet to show a single person who has been killed because of the Snowden leaks. The only harm to the US was to its reputation and international standing, and that they can blame on their actions, not the disclosure thereof.
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 up being all about selling himself to foreign governments. The detail of his actions make his motivations very clear, even if you don't know the background.
I suppose you disagree with the findings of the Church commission as well... Folks like you act as if our history is not tainted with illegal and oppressive acts by government agencies.
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.
So you blindly trust what the government tells you.
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 up being all about selling himself to foreign governments. The detail of his actions make his motivations very clear, even if you don't know the background.
I suppose you disagree with the findings of the Church commission as well... Folks like you act as if our history is not tainted with illegal and oppressive acts by government agencies.
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.
So you blindly trust what the government tells you.
That's a non-sequitur and straw man rolled into one. No - it was a simple, pragmatic observation.
I understand why someone who seriously values privacy and freedom would do what Mr Snowden did, but I do not think that his actions are such a slam dunk as a win for freedom. The recent reinvigoration of Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions, is not something that can be ignored as context for what has happened as a result of what Mr Snowden has disclosed. If his actions have not made the world a more dangerous place, they very likely did not make it any safer. There is no tangible benefit from airing laundry if there is no accounting for the actions of those in power.
The idea that only real men should have privacy because they are willing to risk the dangers that bring freedom to everybody is not an acceptable refuge from the real world dangers of powerful totalitarian states. Freedom is a human right not some thing that only the rich and powerful deserve to have. That said it is clear that giving a society a choice to seek freedom must come in the context of relative financial and physical security. The world needs a strong police force more than ever and the political will and financial calculus to exercise that power is not an easy one. If Africa, South America, and India all have the same kind of financial growth that China has found over the previous 25 years, then we will see a much safer world.
The other background to the security discussion needs to be a recognition that individual freedom combined with economic and especially technological success brings with it increasing levels of responsibility to be aware of what your neighbors are doing. In a world where many individuals have the power to hire a seat on a rocket, the dangers of terrorism become even more dire. Imagine an attempt to hijack a large rocket and the kind of explosive damage that such a device could have in the wrong hands. Assuming the fuel used in rockets does not become safer, we could have a major metropolitan center that is so contaminated in toxic waste as to be uninhabitable for years after an explosion. My point is that there is increasing danger from sick individuals as the technical power of each individual increases. Having a security service that studies the trends of behavior among all individuals in this world to avoid such catastrophes is not an unreasonable safety device. The same thing goes for a wired world where destruction of major communication and infrastructure services becomes possible for a knowledgable computer scientist.
If the NSA and CIA has followed the letter and spirit of the law and limited their intelligence activities to foreign governments instead of US citizens, then none of this would have leaked in the first place. And let's not forget the fact that the CIA bears a substantial responsibility for much of the political instability in the middle east and latin america.
I suppose you disagree with the findings of the Church commission as well... Folks like you act as if our history is not tainted with illegal and oppressive acts by government agencies.
Illegal and oppressive acts by government agencies are an issue. Another issue is disclosure of large amounts of classified military information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
This was not a reckless disclosure of government secrets. Snowden took great care to work with trustworthy journalists and carefully choose what information to publish. The government has yet to show a single person who has been killed because of the Snowden leaks. The only harm to the US was to its reputation and international standing, and that they can blame on their actions, not the disclosure thereof.
Why did the Guardian only decide to release 1% of what they received from Snowden? Web space is cheap.
The 1% that was released, is bad stuff. Pisses me off that the NSA has these programs (though I assumed something along those lines since I was quite young). I'm happy that info was disclosed, in spite of the illegality of disclosing it.
Still, that other 99% is why an openly corrupt government like Russia's would agree to take Snowden in. Nothing is free, and it is likely that Russia and China (and who knows who else) have classified information that has weakened our military and put US lives in danger.
Still, that other 99% is why an openly corrupt government like Russia's would agree to take Snowden in. Nothing is free, and it is likely that Russia and China (and who knows who else) have classified information that has weakened our military and put US lives in danger.
You evidently missed the part of the story where Snowden divested himself of all the leaked documents before he left Hong Kong. He had nothing to give the Russians when he landed in Moscow, and he only landed in Moscow because of US efforts to hunt him down.
Could he be lying? Sure. Do I take the NSA's word over his, given both entities' track records? Hell no.
For people who value money above all else, it's inconceivable that a person would do what Snowden did because it was the right thing to do and not because of a profit motive.
Still, that other 99% is why an openly corrupt government like Russia's would agree to take Snowden in. Nothing is free, and it is likely that Russia and China (and who knows who else) have classified information that has weakened our military and put US lives in danger.
You evidently missed the part of the story where Snowden divested himself of all the leaked documents before he left Hong Kong. He had nothing to give the Russians when he landed in Moscow, and he only landed in Moscow because of US efforts to hunt him down.
Could he be lying? Sure. Do I take the NSA's word over his, given both entities' track records? Hell no.
For people who value money above all else, it's inconceivable that a person would do what Snowden did because it was the right thing to do and not because of a profit motive.
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.
You evidently missed the part of the story where Snowden divested himself of all the leaked documents before he left Hong Kong. He had nothing to give the Russians when he landed in Moscow, and he only landed in Moscow because of US efforts to hunt him down.
Could he be lying? Sure. Do I take the NSA's word over his, given both entities' track records? Hell no.
For people who value money above all else, it's inconceivable that a person would do what Snowden did because it was the right thing to do and not because of a profit motive.
I think it's silly to believe that he has no access to the stolen documents.
My point and muppetry's point stands: exposing illegal domestic surveillance is great. It needed to be done. The military disclosures are treason.
Do even know the definition of a whistleblower? And, what is wrong with what Snowden did. He revealed a major conspiracy within the intelligence agencies that have run amok and violated our constitutional rights.
<span style="line-height:19.600000381469727px;">Like who?? </span>
Please provide links to reputed sources, not NSA-CIA press releases.
And how do you know this? Even the professional liars at the NSA and the CIA were unable to point to a single incident of harm the resulted from Snowden's revelations. More importantly, they could not show a single case that benefited from the mass spying they did on Americans in violation of the 4th Amendment. How does exposing a useless, ineffective program hurt our national security?
You clearly hate America and our Constitution, and would prefer a Nazi police state.
Hate America? I just finished serving 22 years in the UNITED STATES NAVY defending your right to talk crap online. Freedom isn't free. It costs a hefty F...... Fee. That was from "Team America" but it's true. Hero is a word I apply to my friends who died in the Marines when we served in Iraq together. How about you tell their family members that Snowden is on the same level as their fallen Marine. I'm sure that they would slap the taste out of your mouth.
How about you dedicate part of your life to defending this country you say you love so much. You're not speaking German right because people like me served. They paid the ultimate sacrifice. They aren't here to read your defense of a traitor. But I'm here. I'll listen to you. I'll even take your insult. This one is on the house. A gift from me to you.
Try to understand the importance of gathering intel and how damaging it is when your enemy knows how you collect data on them. How they can then hide better and pose a bigger threat to you.
You don't have the clearance to hear the real stuff the NSA or CIA has to say about what Snowden revealed. If they told you about it you'd probably run to Russia too and share an apartment with Snowden. Have you heard of security clearance levels? You know classified, secret, top secret????? Revelation at one level has a different significance than the other.
Could the NSA and CIA have gathered Intel in other ways? Sure. But they used the power that was given to them lawfully. And honestly I really don't care if they read my email as long as they catch terrorists and SO CALLED Americans who are threatening my country and trying to join ISIL to kill REAL Americans. Snowden stole classified information and fled to another country with that information. Breaking the law doesn't help his case any.
If you've served I salute you but you should know better.
Hate America? I just finished serving 22 years in the UNITED STATES NAVY defending your right to talk crap online. Freedom isn't free. It costs a hefty F...... Fee. That was from "Team America" but it's true. Hero is a word I apply to my friends who died in the Marines when we served in Iraq together. How about you tell their family members that Snowden is on the same level as their fallen Marine. I'm sure that they would slap the taste out of your mouth.
How about you dedicate part of your life to defending this country you say you love so much. You're not speaking German right because people like me served. They paid the ultimate sacrifice. They aren't here to read your defense of a traitor. But I'm here. I'll listen to you. I'll even take your insult. This one is on the house. A gift from me to you.
Try to understand the importance of gathering intel and how damaging it is when your enemy knows how you collect data on them. How they can then hide better and pose a bigger threat to you.
You don't have the clearance to hear the real stuff the NSA or CIA has to say about what Snowden revealed. If they told you about it you'd probably run to Russia too and share an apartment with Snowden. Have you heard of security clearance levels? You know classified, secret, top secret????? Revelation at one level has a different significance than the other.
Could the NSA and CIA have gathered Intel in other ways? Sure. But they used the power that was given to them lawfully. And honestly I really don't care if they read my email as long as they catch terrorists and SO CALLED Americans who are threatening my country and trying to join ISIL to kill REAL Americans. Snowden stole classified information and fled to another country with that information. Breaking the law doesn't help his case any.
If you've served I salute you but you should know better.
Thanks for your service and apologies for breaking into this conversation, but it's my understanding that as a Marine (or any enlisted member of the armed services) one must take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. If the Congress, the President or a branch of government are openly or secretly violating the Constitution, that's a problem. A huge fundamental problem.
I have always.. and still believe this. If Snowden was a "patriot" he would have vetted the documents before putting them in the hands of people/governments that could use them for ill purposes. But instead, he basically handed it the sharks. The information brought out was not exclusive to what the US government was doing to its people (which we already knew about since the true whistle blower exposed Room 641A in 2006) - but also it exposed a tremendous amount of sensitive information about US and UK operations well outside the context of the US citizens and deep into the world of true US and UK security.
So in short.. I too believe that Appleinsider should not have put their foot on this path of glorifying and/or legitimising Edward Snowden.
Btw - haven't you seen the news of late... how its now known that China and Russia have cracked open all the documents? Do you think Russia is good? I lived there for 8 years... and trust me... you know nothing!
He actually didn't personally release any documents, he gave them to reporters to release the information. That way there was no bias as to what was released. He gained nothing from this other than doing the right thing
Thanks for your service and apologies for breaking into this conversation, but it's my understanding that as a Marine (or any enlisted member of the armed services) one must take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. If the Congress, the President or a branch of government are openly or secretly violating the Constitution, that's a problem. A huge fundamental problem.
That's the problem though. Nut jobs feel free to use their own judgement and it's not a huge leap then to a group of heavily armed paramilitary types listening to rantings from a radio host and blowing up a government building all because their candidate didn't win an election. Oh, I wasn't talking about America but you never know it could happen here.
Which military disclosures? The unsubstantiated ones?
Yep, those. They had damned well better stay unsubstantiated. Maybe The Guardian has higher morals than Snowden, even though their folks haven't been read in. Remember, the media who conveyed the disclosures are the ones saying that there are disclosures that shouldn't be seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pujones1
I just finished serving 22 years in the UNITED STATES NAVY defending your right to talk crap online.
Thank you for your service. I hope your transition is smooth.
He remarked that "a much bigger hammer" should fall on Apple if Cook reverses policies, since it would be a "betrayal of trust" and past promises.
LOL. I expect Apple to keep its promises because it's in Apple's marketing and commercial interest to do so. But if it ever breaks them, no "hammer" will fall on Apple. Instead, legions of keyboard warriors will defend Apple's new stance.
This has been proven over, and over, and over again.
Big screens were cumbersome. Until Apple did them.
Ads were bad, until iAds.
NFC payments were poor technology. Until Apple decided to use NFC for Apple Pay.
And so it goes....
Methinks Apple fans value Apple far more than their privacy, despite what they say.
The problem with Snowden, isn't his whistleblowing revelations that the American government was spying on Americans. It's the fact that he stole thousands and thousands of highly classified files, that had nothing to do with intelligence gathering on American citizens, and then shopped them around the world.
He's only slightly more moral than Kim Philby.
It's mind boggling how many sources he's put at risk and how many intelligence operations he's compromised. Someday, we'll know how many lives were quietly ended in a dark alley on a dark night somewhere, because of information he decided that he had the moral authority to divulge to hostile foreign governments.
Comments
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.
He gave up a nice life making a nice living to expose what he felt (and many agree) was a crime being committed upon American citizens by their own government. It is only because of what he did that the American public is finally realizing that those who have warned about these acts were not tinfoil hat wearing lunatics after all. This makes him a hero in my book, and it's a lot more than I can say for the spineless politicians in Washington who have abdicated their duty to their constituents and our constitution.
It is people like you that pave the way for authoritarian governments to develop and turn democracies into police states.
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 up being all about selling himself to foreign governments. The detail of his actions make his motivations very clear, even if you don't know the background.
Great, Godwin already. Well, thanks for playing.
So we have your vote on releasing classified military info?
This was not a reckless disclosure of government secrets. Snowden took great care to work with trustworthy journalists and carefully choose what information to publish. The government has yet to show a single person who has been killed because of the Snowden leaks. The only harm to the US was to its reputation and international standing, and that they can blame on their actions, not the disclosure thereof.
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 up being all about selling himself to foreign governments. The detail of his actions make his motivations very clear, even if you don't know the background.
I suppose you disagree with the findings of the Church commission as well... Folks like you act as if our history is not tainted with illegal and oppressive acts by government agencies.
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.
So you blindly trust what the government tells you.
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 up being all about selling himself to foreign governments. The detail of his actions make his motivations very clear, even if you don't know the background.
I suppose you disagree with the findings of the Church commission as well... Folks like you act as if our history is not tainted with illegal and oppressive acts by government agencies.
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.
So you blindly trust what the government tells you.
That's a non-sequitur and straw man rolled into one. No - it was a simple, pragmatic observation.
I understand why someone who seriously values privacy and freedom would do what Mr Snowden did, but I do not think that his actions are such a slam dunk as a win for freedom. The recent reinvigoration of Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions, is not something that can be ignored as context for what has happened as a result of what Mr Snowden has disclosed. If his actions have not made the world a more dangerous place, they very likely did not make it any safer. There is no tangible benefit from airing laundry if there is no accounting for the actions of those in power.
The idea that only real men should have privacy because they are willing to risk the dangers that bring freedom to everybody is not an acceptable refuge from the real world dangers of powerful totalitarian states. Freedom is a human right not some thing that only the rich and powerful deserve to have. That said it is clear that giving a society a choice to seek freedom must come in the context of relative financial and physical security. The world needs a strong police force more than ever and the political will and financial calculus to exercise that power is not an easy one. If Africa, South America, and India all have the same kind of financial growth that China has found over the previous 25 years, then we will see a much safer world.
The other background to the security discussion needs to be a recognition that individual freedom combined with economic and especially technological success brings with it increasing levels of responsibility to be aware of what your neighbors are doing. In a world where many individuals have the power to hire a seat on a rocket, the dangers of terrorism become even more dire. Imagine an attempt to hijack a large rocket and the kind of explosive damage that such a device could have in the wrong hands. Assuming the fuel used in rockets does not become safer, we could have a major metropolitan center that is so contaminated in toxic waste as to be uninhabitable for years after an explosion. My point is that there is increasing danger from sick individuals as the technical power of each individual increases. Having a security service that studies the trends of behavior among all individuals in this world to avoid such catastrophes is not an unreasonable safety device. The same thing goes for a wired world where destruction of major communication and infrastructure services becomes possible for a knowledgable computer scientist.
If the NSA and CIA has followed the letter and spirit of the law and limited their intelligence activities to foreign governments instead of US citizens, then none of this would have leaked in the first place. And let's not forget the fact that the CIA bears a substantial responsibility for much of the political instability in the middle east and latin america.
I suppose you disagree with the findings of the Church commission as well... Folks like you act as if our history is not tainted with illegal and oppressive acts by government agencies.
Illegal and oppressive acts by government agencies are an issue. Another issue is disclosure of large amounts of classified military information.
This was not a reckless disclosure of government secrets. Snowden took great care to work with trustworthy journalists and carefully choose what information to publish. The government has yet to show a single person who has been killed because of the Snowden leaks. The only harm to the US was to its reputation and international standing, and that they can blame on their actions, not the disclosure thereof.
Why did the Guardian only decide to release 1% of what they received from Snowden? Web space is cheap.
The 1% that was released, is bad stuff. Pisses me off that the NSA has these programs (though I assumed something along those lines since I was quite young). I'm happy that info was disclosed, in spite of the illegality of disclosing it.
Still, that other 99% is why an openly corrupt government like Russia's would agree to take Snowden in. Nothing is free, and it is likely that Russia and China (and who knows who else) have classified information that has weakened our military and put US lives in danger.
Still, that other 99% is why an openly corrupt government like Russia's would agree to take Snowden in. Nothing is free, and it is likely that Russia and China (and who knows who else) have classified information that has weakened our military and put US lives in danger.
You evidently missed the part of the story where Snowden divested himself of all the leaked documents before he left Hong Kong. He had nothing to give the Russians when he landed in Moscow, and he only landed in Moscow because of US efforts to hunt him down.
Could he be lying? Sure. Do I take the NSA's word over his, given both entities' track records? Hell no.
For people who value money above all else, it's inconceivable that a person would do what Snowden did because it was the right thing to do and not because of a profit motive.
Still, that other 99% is why an openly corrupt government like Russia's would agree to take Snowden in. Nothing is free, and it is likely that Russia and China (and who knows who else) have classified information that has weakened our military and put US lives in danger.
You evidently missed the part of the story where Snowden divested himself of all the leaked documents before he left Hong Kong. He had nothing to give the Russians when he landed in Moscow, and he only landed in Moscow because of US efforts to hunt him down.
Could he be lying? Sure. Do I take the NSA's word over his, given both entities' track records? Hell no.
For people who value money above all else, it's inconceivable that a person would do what Snowden did because it was the right thing to do and not because of a profit motive.
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.
You evidently missed the part of the story where Snowden divested himself of all the leaked documents before he left Hong Kong. He had nothing to give the Russians when he landed in Moscow, and he only landed in Moscow because of US efforts to hunt him down.
Could he be lying? Sure. Do I take the NSA's word over his, given both entities' track records? Hell no.
For people who value money above all else, it's inconceivable that a person would do what Snowden did because it was the right thing to do and not because of a profit motive.
I think it's silly to believe that he has no access to the stolen documents.
My point and muppetry's point stands: exposing illegal domestic surveillance is great. It needed to be done. The military disclosures are treason.
Which military disclosures? The unsubstantiated ones?
Hate America? I just finished serving 22 years in the UNITED STATES NAVY defending your right to talk crap online. Freedom isn't free. It costs a hefty F...... Fee. That was from "Team America" but it's true. Hero is a word I apply to my friends who died in the Marines when we served in Iraq together. How about you tell their family members that Snowden is on the same level as their fallen Marine. I'm sure that they would slap the taste out of your mouth.
How about you dedicate part of your life to defending this country you say you love so much. You're not speaking German right because people like me served. They paid the ultimate sacrifice. They aren't here to read your defense of a traitor. But I'm here. I'll listen to you. I'll even take your insult. This one is on the house. A gift from me to you.
Try to understand the importance of gathering intel and how damaging it is when your enemy knows how you collect data on them. How they can then hide better and pose a bigger threat to you.
You don't have the clearance to hear the real stuff the NSA or CIA has to say about what Snowden revealed. If they told you about it you'd probably run to Russia too and share an apartment with Snowden. Have you heard of security clearance levels? You know classified, secret, top secret????? Revelation at one level has a different significance than the other.
Could the NSA and CIA have gathered Intel in other ways? Sure. But they used the power that was given to them lawfully. And honestly I really don't care if they read my email as long as they catch terrorists and SO CALLED Americans who are threatening my country and trying to join ISIL to kill REAL Americans. Snowden stole classified information and fled to another country with that information. Breaking the law doesn't help his case any.
If you've served I salute you but you should know better.
Thanks for your service and apologies for breaking into this conversation, but it's my understanding that as a Marine (or any enlisted member of the armed services) one must take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. If the Congress, the President or a branch of government are openly or secretly violating the Constitution, that's a problem. A huge fundamental problem.
He actually didn't personally release any documents, he gave them to reporters to release the information. That way there was no bias as to what was released. He gained nothing from this other than doing the right thing
I always thought the 'murder fatwas' were only from medieval, barbaric muslim clerics!
That's the problem though. Nut jobs feel free to use their own judgement and it's not a huge leap then to a group of heavily armed paramilitary types listening to rantings from a radio host and blowing up a government building all because their candidate didn't win an election. Oh, I wasn't talking about America but you never know it could happen here.
Which military disclosures? The unsubstantiated ones?
Yep, those. They had damned well better stay unsubstantiated. Maybe The Guardian has higher morals than Snowden, even though their folks haven't been read in. Remember, the media who conveyed the disclosures are the ones saying that there are disclosures that shouldn't be seen.
I just finished serving 22 years in the UNITED STATES NAVY defending your right to talk crap online.
Thank you for your service. I hope your transition is smooth.
LOL. I expect Apple to keep its promises because it's in Apple's marketing and commercial interest to do so. But if it ever breaks them, no "hammer" will fall on Apple. Instead, legions of keyboard warriors will defend Apple's new stance.
This has been proven over, and over, and over again.
Big screens were cumbersome. Until Apple did them.
Ads were bad, until iAds.
NFC payments were poor technology. Until Apple decided to use NFC for Apple Pay.
And so it goes....
Methinks Apple fans value Apple far more than their privacy, despite what they say.
He's only slightly more moral than Kim Philby.
It's mind boggling how many sources he's put at risk and how many intelligence operations he's compromised. Someday, we'll know how many lives were quietly ended in a dark alley on a dark night somewhere, because of information he decided that he had the moral authority to divulge to hostile foreign governments.