Forgot your password?

Edward Snowden is ...

Displaying poll results.
A Hero
  11717 votes / 38%
More hero than villain
  6997 votes / 22%
Ambiguous in intent
  3889 votes / 12%
More villain than hero
  1431 votes / 4%
A villain
  1420 votes / 4%
A fictional character designed to distract us
  2106 votes / 6%
In it for the airline snacks
  2929 votes / 9%
30489 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Edward Snowden is ...

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Snowden (Score:4, Informative)

    by operagost (62405) on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @09:55AM (#44100049) Homepage Journal
    I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers did "Remember, remember, the Fifth of November"-- a day the government of one of the greatest powers of the world could have been crippled with mere black gunpowder-- when they wrote the Fourth Amendment.
  • Re:Snowden (Score:5, Informative)

    by sageres (561626) on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @11:56AM (#44101343)

    I don't recall them ever mentioning either Guy Fawkes or the Gunpowder Plot anywhere in the Federalist Papers or anywhere else.
    HOWEVER the wrote the following for sure:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.


  • Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Informative)

    by Applekid (993327) on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @12:15PM (#44101589)

    There is absolutely nothing illegal about the orders or about the fact of the wiretapping that NSA has been accused and admitted to. Your definition of "illegal" posts as much weight as "Applekid and any other unapologetic assumptionists of this thoughtless dreck illegally posting on the Slashdot!"

    You're right in that my definition of illegal doesn't matter, but unless sageres is an alias for a justice Hugo Black, your opinion doesn't matter either. Katz v. United States established a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and the NSA clearly violated it. In turn, a violation of citizen's fourth amendment rights.

  • Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Informative)

    by ackthpt (218170) on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @02:06PM (#44103029) Homepage Journal

    I very much agree, what he did is against the law, but I don't think I would call it wrong.

    I'd side with the NSA a bit more if they were chasing down this sort of garbage [] and passing it on to someone for investigation/prosecution or at least to the telco so this sort of spoofing wouldn't be able to happen again.

  • Re:Wrong by law (Score:5, Informative)

    by PraiseBob (1923958) on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @05:20PM (#44105533)
    Director of National Intellligence, Director of the FBI, Director of the NSA have all demonstrably lied before congress in sworn testimony. That is perjury. That is illegal.

    The wiretapping orders directly violate the 4th amendment. The Supreme Court has made rulings on the limitations of executive orders in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) and more recently in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld(2006). Both rulings limit the presidents ability to use executive orders to override laws created by congress.

    "The decision may have important implications for other disputes relating to the extent of executive power and the unitary executive theory. In particular, it may undermine the Bush administration's legal arguments for domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency without warrants as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

    The actions from the executive branch are in direct conflict of both Congress and the Supreme Court in laws and rulings created within the past 10 years. If you think there is "nothing illegal" about this, then you have no understanding of the even the most primitive aspects of American government with respect to the bill of rights and the 3 branches of government designed to act as checks and balances.
  • Re:Wrong by law (Score:4, Informative)

    by Intropy (2009018) on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @01:24AM (#44109279)

    That court approval is called a warrant, "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..." Since they don't have probable cause, the warrants are themselves illegal, and knowingly using an illegal warrant makes you complicit.

  • Re:Wrong by law (Score:4, Informative)

    by Zocalo (252965) on Thursday June 27, 2013 @01:06PM (#44123523) Homepage

    The people who should have broken this -- who our Founding Fathers expected would handle things like this -- are the press.

    Um, the press *did* break this story. The UK's Guardian and the US's Washington Post originally carried the story; they have to get their original information from somewhere and it's a bit difficult to get this kind of information through traditional investigative journalism; they needed a whistleblower, and Snowden provided one. That said, both those papers deserve some kudos for being amongst the few left that are actually still doing their own investiagative journalism instead of just reprinting the latest "news" off the PR wires and padding it with celebrity gossip for every issue.

    What I don't get is why Snowden chose to go public with his identity when and in the manner that he did. If his aim was to expose the massive levels of surveillance that are going on, regardless of whether or not most educated people suspected as much, then why turn it into a media circus centred on the latest episode of "Where's Edward?" instead of allowing the press to focus on the core issue?

Put your best foot forward. Or just call in and say you're sick.


Forgot your password?