Yes, there is more to life than the cult of Snowden. No reason to run around with our heads cut off just because the man gave an interview.
219 karma · joined June 29, 2016
https://bradleyrosenfeld.com
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/bradleyrosenfeld; my proof: https://keybase.io/bradleyrosenfeld/sigs/-CT-LSu9GTK44fGj-PgV302-BVkZKy1fB1v6l7mulMI ]
Or how there are multiple professional leagues on multiple continents. Each with their own followings and eccentricities.
You could also point out that baseball is in fact back in the Olympics. Precisely because it now has an international following.
But none of that matters. Because this poster is in a race to prove how they are more euro-centric than Americans are USA-centric.
7.08 (a) 2 specifically applies to the scenario like in this comment:
> Rule 7.08(a) Comment: Any runner after reaching first base who leaves the base path heading for his dugout or his position believing that there is no further play, may be declared out if the umpire judges the act of the runner to be considered abandoning his efforts to run the bases. Even though an out is called, the ball remains in play in regard to any other runner.
Essentially the runner has to obviously abandon his attempt to reach the next base. In the scenario outlined in the article the runner is still advancing to the next base, trying to draw a throw. According to your interpretation, any runner taking a lead without specifically advancing should be out, which is incorrect.
When it comes to judgement calls like this it all comes down to the umpire. Many umpires have noted[1] that this is a legal play. And it was ruled as such in the article's example. Calling it "misleading reporting" is a smear on a very well written story about an edge case that isn't clear cut.
(I will note that is very easy for the offense to execute incorrectly and for the umpires to get it wrong. For example: https://youtu.be/WnI4KlUNf38)
If I trust an organization to put the resources towards properly auditing their software, that's often far more important then whether or not I can personally do an audit. The majority of people and organizations do not have the time or technical skills to properly evaluate software. Whether the software they use is open-source won't ultimately matter.
The "many eyes" argument often falls apart because most of the time there simply aren't that many eyes dedicated to a project. What is the practical difference between Microsoft hiring 100 people to perform security audits and an open-source project that has 100 volunteers? Resources and trust. If you trust the open-source project to dedicate resources to security, and their software fits in your threat model, then use it. Or the inverse, if you don't trust MS and their software doesn't fit: avoid it. The vast majority of the time open-source vs closed-source should not be the main differentiator, but rather a smaller element of an informed decision.
But this issue is never as black and white as "open-source is more secure." There are many other factors that go into the security of a product beyond its source code being readable. Deciding which factors matter largely depends upon your unique threat model.
Except that would be illegal (and no ISP is going to sell raw data, even if they could)
edit: I will acknowledge that the age of the document does change its impact. But 2013 is pretty recent.
First, while much of the information might be common-sense, it might not be to potential adversaries and I see no reason to provide further aide.
Second, revealing documents like this helps prove what FBI isn't doing. When trying to plan an effective counter to surveillance, it can be just as important to know what isn't be tracked as well as what is. Again, I don't see a public good here.
I simply don't think there is an overriding good that outweighs potential downsides (even if small). Revealing this document does not show moral or legal problems. All it does is fulfill curiosity. Which isn't a good reason for leaking information related to national security.
I lean towards no, but I'd be interested in discussion on this.
The linked site is a PARODY. There is no such thing as the Domestic Surveillance Directorate, that would be the FBI. How the author of this article fell for that, I don't know.
The latter part of my comment was meant to provide some context as to why that type of information hasn't been publicly released. If the IC reveals sources and methods, Russia or similar actors will change their behaviors in order to avoid detection/attribution.
The points you raise are good and worth discussing, but unrelated to what I was talking about.
First, the people making the DNC hack report are not the same as the analysts who worked on Iraq. The IC is not a monolith.
Second, the Bush White House saw the intelligence they wanted to see.
Third, burning sources and methods is a very real concern in intelligence gathering. That reality can't be ignored no matter how much you want information to be free and open.
You don't have to trust the IC. In fact you probably shouldn't take what they say at face value. But there are very good reasons for why they operate the way they do.
But do you really expect a nation state to say "hey, this is exactly how were are damaged. Please exploit us." That's just the nature of the intelligence business, it's hard to provide proof of damage without causing further harm.
I actually had to look that up. Thanks for a new word that I can throw around. I don't think a personal attack on the author helps your argument, but that's your prerogative.
Also, thanks for clarifying your position. I disagree with you on the wholesale dismantling of intelligence agencies (they serve a purpose), but I think we can agree that oversight is needed and necessary perhaps regardless of the exact means.
But I think a more balanced approach is necessary. The leaker should have at least some knowledge of what they are providing to journalists. This was somewhat addressed in the article because the author seemed to feel that Snowden was opening himself up to attack precisely because he was so indiscriminate. He put a target on his back from not just the US government but also foreign governments who want the information he has.
Your response actually agrees with the author. I don't think the author would deny that leaking can be and is a necessary part of a free society.