42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Wed 2 Dec, 2015 12:44 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Before Snowden, the terrorists did not know what precise tactics they needed to avoid.

Where did you come up with such a claim

From the fact that Snowden told them what tactics the NSA was using.

And from the fact that no one before Snowden had told them what tactics the NSA was using.


BillRM wrote:
as it is complete nonsense

It seems pretty clear that Snowden was the one who revealed the NSA's precise tactics.


BillRM wrote:
as there never been a secret on how to keep a low profile on the net dating back to at least to the 1990s.

Was there a list of the NSA's precise tactics on the net before Snowden?


BillRM wrote:
I am fairly sure that I had look at more snowden papers then you had and as I been interest in the subject for many decades with more understanding and had yet to had found any thing in them that would be of great added help to terrorists.

But if you would care to link to such snowden information I will be happy to look at it.

Take for example the now-dead phone metadata program. Snowden told them that the NSA only traced the phone connections for three hops to try to see if they linked together in a web. This knowledge makes it easy to evade the NSA just by making sure that their phone connections involved more than three hops.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Wed 2 Dec, 2015 12:50 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Real serous terrorists do not used phones all that must for real time communications and when they do they used cheap burner phones that are only use a few times each.

The now-defunct phone metadata program looked for suspicious patterns in the use of such burner phones.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Wed 2 Dec, 2015 12:51 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Name one program that snowden reveal that might had trap terrorists before snowden release information on them.

Every single program in the NSA "might" have been able to trap a terrorist before Snowden compromised it.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 2 Dec, 2015 12:58 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I've followed your comments closely over the years, Bill...and in my opinion...you hate this country


An to me you are a clueless idiot that would follow anyone in power blindly over the cliff right to a police state while waving the flag.




Well...I love ya anyway.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 2 Dec, 2015 12:59 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I wrote that Benedict Arnold did what he did FOR HIS REASONS.

He did...no matter what the reasons were.


The reasons matter a great deal indeed and Snowden reasons show him to be an honorable man who love his country far more then those who wish to hide their misdeeds from the american people by ways of security stamps.



Oh...so now you want to be brave and patriotic...and honorable!

You really are on a losing streak here, Bill. You ought to quit while you are far behind.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 2 Dec, 2015 01:00 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Every single program in the NSA "might" have been able to trap a terrorist before Snowden compromised it.


Nonsense and once more point one program just one program out of the sea of snowden releases that have any chance of trapping aware terrorists.

Those programs was design to do massive spying on the world citizens not find terrorists.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 2 Dec, 2015 01:07 pm
@oralloy,
Wonderful you have one burner phone talking to another burner phone that may or may not have anything to do with terrorism once or twice and what the hell would that tell you?

Locations? I assume that someone would take a drive before using them an if I was them I would leave such a burner phone laying and in a public place
so some innocent person would picked it up and used it to further confused the issue.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 2 Dec, 2015 01:09 pm
Is there an echo in here?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Wed 2 Dec, 2015 01:49 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Is there an echo in here?
http://i66.tinypic.com/2eyb72g.jpg
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Wed 2 Dec, 2015 01:57 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Is there an echo in here?
http://i66.tinypic.com/2eyb72g.jpg


Yeah. I thought I would beat Bill to the correction...but I missed.

He a fast deleter!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  5  
Wed 2 Dec, 2015 02:39 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

To me, anyone who knowingly risks his security and life is brave, whatever the motive. To take an extreme example, to me the terrorists who killed 130 people in Paris last month were despicable but courageous. All the politicians who speak of a "cowardly attack" blah-blah-blah in such cases, they are just pissing in a violin, just like you are now. Guess it makes you and them feel better but it's ridiculous.


Their cowardice comes from attacking civilians. How much strength does it take to go and shoot a bunch of unarmed civilians trying to live their lives? That's cowardice. If you have an issue with a policy or an army, take your fight to them if you are not a piece of **** coward.

Terrorists are the biggest cowards in the world because they choose to fight an unarmed populace. Calling them courageous is an egregious misuse of the word. Maybe you don't really understand what either term means.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Wed 2 Dec, 2015 08:53 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
To me, anyone who knowingly risks his security and life is brave


Your definition of brave and mine differ by about 180 degrees.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Wed 2 Dec, 2015 09:03 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, this way lies the kind of people who would attack you in their spare time when they werent posting crap on a2k. I have on occasion found myself wishing I knew a poster so I could confront him face to face and than realized that way lies poli e problems and just did as I should and ignored them for the trouble making fools I know they are. Anonymity is best on this kind of forum.
BillRM
 
  2  
Thu 3 Dec, 2015 07:04 am
@RABEL222,
Quote:
wishing I knew a poster so I could confront him face to face and than realized that way lies poli e problems


Interesting that there are people who would wish to stop someone from exercising free speech rights to the point it might become a police matter.

In any case, writing on public matters without using a legal name go back to our founding fathers before we even started to become a nation.

If Frank and others have a problem with that they also must have a problem with most of out founding fathers and such writings as the Federal papers.

Footnote writing under the names of famous early Roman Republic figures was a common thing for our founding fathers to do.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Thu 3 Dec, 2015 07:15 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
wishing I knew a poster so I could confront him face to face and than realized that way lies poli e problems


Interesting that there are people who would wish to stop someone from exercising free speech rights to the point it might become a police matter.

In any case, writing on public matters without using a legal name go back to our founding fathers before we even started to become a nation.

If Frank and others have a problem with that they also must have a problem with most of out founding fathers and such writings as the Federal papers.

Footnote writing under the names of famous early Roman Republic figures was a common thing for our founding fathers to do.



I don't have a problem with it. Do it if you want.

But I am laughing at the crap about you wanting to be brave as Snowden...when you do not even have the guts to use your real name when posting your thoughts.

You are anything but brave.

That's all.

Oh...well maybe one more thing. Using the Founding Fathers as a comparison for yourself is a bit much even for you.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Thu 3 Dec, 2015 07:45 am
@RABEL222,
Quote:
Your definition of brave and mine differ by about 180 degrees.

I've been thinking that there is a positive nuance in "brave", especially in English but also in Italian and French, which my posts so far have been ignoring. "Brave" does not just mean "courageous", it means "courageous for a good cause". From that standpoint, i understand why Snowden supporters see him as "brave" while his detractors do not: doing so implies agreeing with him, agreeing that he had good cause to do what he did.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Thu 3 Dec, 2015 07:48 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Terrorists are the biggest cowards in the world because they choose to fight an unarmed populace. Calling them courageous is an egregious misuse of the word. Maybe you don't really understand what either term means.

Point well taken.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 3 Dec, 2015 07:51 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
But I am laughing at the crap about you wanting to be brave as Snowden...when you do not even have the guts to use your real name when posting your thoughts.


So you are agreeing that Snowden is brave just that I am not for following an example of most of our founding fathers?

Quote:
Using the Founding Fathers as a comparison for yourself is a bit much even for you.


Strange as I still can not see how you can attacked me for not using my full legal name in my writings but not our founding fathers for doing the same thing.

I know there is some level of logic behind your thinking, at least to some degree, and I would love to hear it.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Thu 3 Dec, 2015 10:19 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
But I am laughing at the crap about you wanting to be brave as Snowden...when you do not even have the guts to use your real name when posting your thoughts.


So you are agreeing that Snowden is brave just that I am not for following an example of most of our founding fathers?


Not even remotely!

As I have stated clearly...I do not think Snowden showed bravery or patriotism by doing what he did.

As for you...I simply do not see your as an especially brave individual.

The Founding Fathers faced imprisonment for treason for what they wrote. You don't. You are just too chicken to use your real name.


Quote:
Quote:
Using the Founding Fathers as a comparison for yourself is a bit much even for you.


Strange as I still can not see how you can attacked me for not using my full legal name in my writings but not our founding fathers for doing the same thing.


Look at what I said above.

Quote:

I know there is some level of logic behind your thinking, at least to some degree, and I would love to hear it.



You've heard it.
BillRM
 
  2  
Thu 3 Dec, 2015 01:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
The Founding Fathers faced imprisonment for treason for what they wrote. You don't. You are just too chicken to use your real name.


Good theory but like most of your theories kind of worthless as for example the Federal papers was written after the revolution and still done so anonymity.

Next the founders who wrote during the war was in open rebellion against the crown so nothing they wrote would had placed them in any worse position with the crown an still they issue opinion papers anonymity in many cases.

Would you care for a list................

Footnote the battle between Jefferson and Hamilton over government policies during Washington two terms was fought under assume names.

I know Frank that you just hate the constitution and would prefer to live in a police state but until the constitution is done away with the courts had rule many times that the right to speak on public matters without revealing your ID is protected by the first amendment.



Quote:
https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

Anonymity
Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution, harassment, or even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.

Instead of using their true names to communicate, these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them, secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.

Quote:
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius " and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.

The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.

These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been involved in the fight to protect the rights of anonymous speakers online. As one court observed in a case handled by EFF along with the ACLU of Washington, "[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously."

We've challenged many efforts to impede anonymous communication both in the courts or the legislatures. We also previously provided financial support to the developers of Tor, an anonymous Internet communications system. By combining legal and policy work with technical tools we hope to maintain the Internet's ability to serve as a vehicle for free expression.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 674
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 07/05/2025 at 05:30:14