Gyroscopic Investing

Good talk by Edward Snowden on the NSA and Internet.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WTK5sjXzuUs

(Shameless political semi-hyperbole, engage)

God help guys like this if Trump is elected.

(Disengage)

I didn't see the TED talk but I watched the HBO documentary "Citizenfour". I don't think the part about Gleen Greenwald's male boyfriend (husband?) being detained in London did any good for the cause but I thought Snowden came off very good.

If Trump hates Snowden and wants him in jail for the rest of his life, or worse, then I'm bothered by that but what is the position of the other candidates? Are any of them proposing a presidential pardon if elected? I'm guessing not.

The most lenient I've heard has been from Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, both of whom said something along the lines of "their whistleblowing should be taken into account during their prosecution." I don't believe a single candidate wants to give the guy a hero's welcome, so it's sort of silly to draw distinctions between them on this matter.

Pointedstick wrote: The most lenient I've heard has been from Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders, both of whom said something along the lines of "their whistleblowing should be taken into account during their prosecution." I don't believe a single candidate wants to give the guy a hero's welcome, so it's sort of silly to draw distinctions between them on this matter.

If it comes down to Hillary vs Trump, as I expect it will, is there any difference between them when it comes to Snowden?

I think not, but I think Hillary might even like to see Snowden strung up by the balls even more than Trump. I don't think Snowden had any beans to spill on Trump but probably a lot on Hillary.

Any President would want a person like Snowden in the federal government's trophy case in Florence Colorado.



I don't think it's a partisan thing.

Controlling the flow of information and concealing the state's surveillance methods is of great interest to most governments.  When someone pulls the curtain back on those activities, the state really has no choice but to come down as hard as possible on them.

MediumTex wrote: Any President would want a person like Snowden in the federal government's trophy case in Florence Colorado.



I don't think it's a partisan thing.

Controlling the flow of information and concealing the state's surveillance methods is of great interest to most governments.  When someone pulls the curtain back on those activities, the state really has no choice but to come down as hard as possible on them.

Any criminally inclined President, you mean.

The state has plenty of choice. It could decide to follow its own rules for a change. You know, the Constitution?

Or if it really doesn't have any choice, what that means is that government is inherently evil.

Your choice (so to speak).

Libertarian666 wrote: Any criminally inclined President, you mean.

So, all of them, then? 

Pointedstick wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Any criminally inclined President, you mean.

So, all of them, then? 

I'm pretty sure Madison and Jefferson wouldn't approve, given their positions on the Alien and Sedition Acts. That's about it for the ones I know much about, though.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Any criminally inclined President, you mean.

So, all of them, then? 

I'm pretty sure Madison and Jefferson wouldn't approve, given their positions on the Alien and Sedition Acts. That's about it for the ones I know much about, though.

Later in life, Thomas Paine was a lot like Snowden and Jefferson protected him, so Jefferson probably would protect Snowden too.

Instead of exposing state secrets, Paine wrote about how the conventional understanding of God was almost certainly wrong, which was probably worse than what Snowden did.

MediumTex wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: So, all of them, then? 

I'm pretty sure Madison and Jefferson wouldn't approve, given their positions on the Alien and Sedition Acts. That's about it for the ones I know much about, though.

Later in life, Thomas Paine was a lot like Snowden and Jefferson protected him, so Jefferson probably would protect Snowden too.

Instead of exposing state secrets, Paine wrote about how the conventional understanding of God was almost certainly wrong, which was probably worse than what Snowden did.

Yes, what I was trying to say was that Jefferson and Madison wouldn't approve of throwing Snowden in prison.

Libertarian666 wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I'm pretty sure Madison and Jefferson wouldn't approve, given their positions on the Alien and Sedition Acts. That's about it for the ones I know much about, though.

Later in life, Thomas Paine was a lot like Snowden and Jefferson protected him, so Jefferson probably would protect Snowden too.

Instead of exposing state secrets, Paine wrote about how the conventional understanding of God was almost certainly wrong, which was probably worse than what Snowden did.

Yes, what I was trying to say was that Jefferson and Madison wouldn't approve of throwing Snowden in prison.

Yeah.

The idea of a worldwide surveillance scheme for reasons only vaguely related to national security probably would have puzzled a lot of the Founding Fathers.

I think that Nixon gets a bad rap for being a paranoid megalomaniac.  I would put George W. Bush and Obama up against Nixon any day when it comes to having administrations with a pathological obsession with secrecy and a true voyeur's desire to spy on basically everyone.

MediumTex wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Later in life, Thomas Paine was a lot like Snowden and Jefferson protected him, so Jefferson probably would protect Snowden too.

Instead of exposing state secrets, Paine wrote about how the conventional understanding of God was almost certainly wrong, which was probably worse than what Snowden did.

Yes, what I was trying to say was that Jefferson and Madison wouldn't approve of throwing Snowden in prison.

Yeah.

The idea of a worldwide surveillance scheme for reasons only vaguely related to national security probably would have puzzled a lot of the Founding Fathers.

I think that Nixon gets a bad rap for being a paranoid megalomaniac.  I would put George W. Bush and Obama up against Nixon any day when it comes to having administrations with a pathological obsession with secrecy and a true voyeur's desire to spy on basically everyone.

Nope. Nixon had a big role in today's surveillance state, including:

The "Bank Secrecy Act", under which the government could get all your bank records and it was a secret from you.
The "War on Drugs", which invented an exception to the Bill of Rights for drug offenses.
Using the government against his political enemies. Remember his infamous "enemies list"?

Libertarian666 wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Yes, what I was trying to say was that Jefferson and Madison wouldn't approve of throwing Snowden in prison.

Yeah.

The idea of a worldwide surveillance scheme for reasons only vaguely related to national security probably would have puzzled a lot of the Founding Fathers.

I think that Nixon gets a bad rap for being a paranoid megalomaniac.  I would put George W. Bush and Obama up against Nixon any day when it comes to having administrations with a pathological obsession with secrecy and a true voyeur's desire to spy on basically everyone.

Nope. Nixon had a big role in today's surveillance state, including:

The "Bank Secrecy Act", under which the government could get all your bank records and it was a secret from you.
The "War on Drugs", which invented an exception to the Bill of Rights for drug offenses.
Using the government against his political enemies. Remember his infamous "enemies list"?

My post might not have been clear.

Nixon was clearly paranoid in an unhealthy way and we have all paid the price for that paranoia for decades.  I'm just suggesting that our last two Presidents weren't so different in the way they approached governmental secrecy and what can only be described as their own "dirty tricks."

MediumTex wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Yeah.

The idea of a worldwide surveillance scheme for reasons only vaguely related to national security probably would have puzzled a lot of the Founding Fathers.

I think that Nixon gets a bad rap for being a paranoid megalomaniac.  I would put George W. Bush and Obama up against Nixon any day when it comes to having administrations with a pathological obsession with secrecy and a true voyeur's desire to spy on basically everyone.

Nope. Nixon had a big role in today's surveillance state, including:

The "Bank Secrecy Act", under which the government could get all your bank records and it was a secret from you.
The "War on Drugs", which invented an exception to the Bill of Rights for drug offenses.
Using the government against his political enemies. Remember his infamous "enemies list"?

My post might not have been clear.

Nixon was clearly paranoid in an unhealthy way and we have all paid the price for that paranoia for decades.  I'm just suggesting that our last two Presidents weren't so different in the way they approached governmental secrecy and what can only be described as their own "dirty tricks."

Oh, I agree they were horrible too, maybe as bad as Nixon. I thought you were suggesting that they were worse, which would be quite tricky... no pun intended.