7 ms·

He even inspired Snowden to expose the illegal mass surveillance programs. IIRC Snowden reached a breaking point when James Clapper, then director of national i

He even inspired Snowden to expose the illegal mass surveillance programs. IIRC Snowden reached a breaking point when James Clapper, then director of national intelligence, lied under oath to Congress when pressed about domestic surveillance by senator Wyden. It's sad we don't hear more about people like this in positions of power.

iwontberude 3y ago
Good thing there is no penalties for lying under oath anymore. That pesky rule of law was so long in the tooth.
- soraminazuki 3y ago
  There are instead life destroying penalties being handed out to whistleblowers. What a world we live in.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    The good thing is we live in a democracy - if we don't like it, we can fix it at the voting booth.
    - SturgeonsLaw 3y ago
      We can vote for a blue boot on our neck or a red boot on our neck
    - quantified 3y ago
      No you can't. You only get to vote for the candidates on the ballot. And they'll get corrupted within a term, usually.
      - somenameforme 3y ago
        GP is being ironic. That said, I also think things happen way before the first term. It requires consent of the Party to get on the ballot and hundreds of millions of dollars, increasingly trending towards billions, to run a campaign with a chance of winning, because in a democracy it's quite self evident that the person who spends the most money, must be the better person. Results don't lie! And on top of all of this, if you aren't shaping up to be who the Party wants, then the completely independent, free, and honest media will demonize you. And even if this doesn't destroy you in the eyes of your own supporters, it'll rile up your opponent's base enough as they race to vote (for somebody they also don't even particularly care for) because if they don't, then you might win! That cannot be allowed to happen as it would obviously be the literal end of the world. This is why it's ever more important for social media to be controlled, lest somebody angle-shoot around the traditional path to success - the media. If somebody's gaining traction on social media, then he's saying things that disagree with the powers that be. Since he's disagreeing with the powers that be, he is spreading misinformation by definition, so he must be censored. For our safety.
        mistermann 3y ago
        Very much agree. I would like to ask you a serious question: do you not think it is extremely weird that so many people will at least sometimes[1] agree that "democracy" is essentially fake, but then at other times take quite literally the opposite stance...praising it, defending it, singing its virtues, etc? Granted, it is theoretically possible that each individual is 100% consistent at all times, and I am simply observing people who are on different sides of the argument, but now and then I'll check into someone's post history and find evidence that pretty soundly rules that out (subjectivity noted). A standard response to this is something along the lines of "Oh, that's people just being X (dumb, etc)", but I do not believe that is an even remotely accurate description of what is really going on. But for even more irony: on one hand, most people tend to think democracy, governance, and all the things downstream of it (ie: their literal experience here on Earth) is a very big deal (the passionate debate over what exactly the events of January 6 "were" is a prime example), yet it is almost impossible to get anyone to engage in a highly serious conversation about just what the fuck is going on here on Planet Earth, 2023. It is as if there is some sort of a yet to be discovered phenomenon in play. Do you think I might be crazy? I very often genuinely feel like I am living in The Truman Show. [1] I feel like this is a crucially important detail that is rarely investigated or even contemplated.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - vmfunction 3y ago
      Well a republic or was an oligarchy now, yeah just words and semantics...
    - Forbo 3y ago
      Gerrymandering, campaign finance, first past the post, and the electoral college have all ensured that my votes account for precisely fuck-all.
    - DarkNova6 3y ago
      From a European perspective, I am most cautious in calling a two party system a proper democracy. It’s easy to game the system when there are only two sides to pay…
    - topmax 3y ago
      Good, what if only have bad options?
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Um try that in a normal court as a citizen and you get your ass handed to you. Only the powerful get exceptions.
  - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
    Viva la France
- hanniabu 3y ago
  Google tells me perjury is still very much a thing. Do you have a source?
  - 1oooqooq 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - quantified 3y ago
    Hard to tell sarcasm in the written word, but I think you were replying to some.
- gowld 3y ago
  Penalties for whom? Clapper was bound by conflicting laws requiring both honesty and secrecy. This problem goes all the way to the root of government and legal system.
  - boffinAudio 3y ago
    The corruption of government begins with its secrets. A truly free people keep no secrets.
  - iwontberude 3y ago
    There are ways to respond to a question without violating secrecy and being dishonest. It’s like pleading the fifth, there are situations where it is acceptable to not tell the whole truth because it is counter to a law or personal right. In those instances the person needs to explicitly proclaim the basis in which they are obscuring the answer. Giving untruthful, absolute answers about the non-existence of something is inconsistent with the above.
zer00eyz 3y ago
His position on it has been clear for a while: 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla... The votes: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2008/s168 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2008/s168 But this is a MUCH older issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A And if you don't know about Quest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio The entire time period of the Bush admin is a microcosm for unresolved issues of today: Voting machines, government over reach and spying, security, encryption, copyright, bad behavior by corporate entities (M$ has a cohort).

iwontberude 3y ago

Good thing there is no penalties for lying under oath anymore. That pesky rule of law was so long in the tooth.

soraminazuki 3y ago
There are instead life destroying penalties being handed out to whistleblowers. What a world we live in.
- mistermann 3y ago
  The good thing is we live in a democracy - if we don't like it, we can fix it at the voting booth.
  - SturgeonsLaw 3y ago
    We can vote for a blue boot on our neck or a red boot on our neck
  - quantified 3y ago
    No you can't. You only get to vote for the candidates on the ballot. And they'll get corrupted within a term, usually.
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      GP is being ironic. That said, I also think things happen way before the first term. It requires consent of the Party to get on the ballot and hundreds of millions of dollars, increasingly trending towards billions, to run a campaign with a chance of winning, because in a democracy it's quite self evident that the person who spends the most money, must be the better person. Results don't lie! And on top of all of this, if you aren't shaping up to be who the Party wants, then the completely independent, free, and honest media will demonize you. And even if this doesn't destroy you in the eyes of your own supporters, it'll rile up your opponent's base enough as they race to vote (for somebody they also don't even particularly care for) because if they don't, then you might win! That cannot be allowed to happen as it would obviously be the literal end of the world. This is why it's ever more important for social media to be controlled, lest somebody angle-shoot around the traditional path to success - the media. If somebody's gaining traction on social media, then he's saying things that disagree with the powers that be. Since he's disagreeing with the powers that be, he is spreading misinformation by definition, so he must be censored. For our safety.
      - mistermann 3y ago
        Very much agree. I would like to ask you a serious question: do you not think it is extremely weird that so many people will at least sometimes[1] agree that "democracy" is essentially fake, but then at other times take quite literally the opposite stance...praising it, defending it, singing its virtues, etc? Granted, it is theoretically possible that each individual is 100% consistent at all times, and I am simply observing people who are on different sides of the argument, but now and then I'll check into someone's post history and find evidence that pretty soundly rules that out (subjectivity noted). A standard response to this is something along the lines of "Oh, that's people just being X (dumb, etc)", but I do not believe that is an even remotely accurate description of what is really going on. But for even more irony: on one hand, most people tend to think democracy, governance, and all the things downstream of it (ie: their literal experience here on Earth) is a very big deal (the passionate debate over what exactly the events of January 6 "were" is a prime example), yet it is almost impossible to get anyone to engage in a highly serious conversation about just what the fuck is going on here on Planet Earth, 2023. It is as if there is some sort of a yet to be discovered phenomenon in play. Do you think I might be crazy? I very often genuinely feel like I am living in The Truman Show. [1] I feel like this is a crucially important detail that is rarely investigated or even contemplated.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - vmfunction 3y ago
    Well a republic or was an oligarchy now, yeah just words and semantics...
  - Forbo 3y ago
    Gerrymandering, campaign finance, first past the post, and the electoral college have all ensured that my votes account for precisely fuck-all.
  - DarkNova6 3y ago
    From a European perspective, I am most cautious in calling a two party system a proper democracy. It’s easy to game the system when there are only two sides to pay…
  - topmax 3y ago
    Good, what if only have bad options?
wkat4242 3y ago
Um try that in a normal court as a citizen and you get your ass handed to you. Only the powerful get exceptions.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  Viva la France
hanniabu 3y ago
Google tells me perjury is still very much a thing. Do you have a source?
- 1oooqooq 3y ago
  [flagged]
- quantified 3y ago
  Hard to tell sarcasm in the written word, but I think you were replying to some.
gowld 3y ago
Penalties for whom? Clapper was bound by conflicting laws requiring both honesty and secrecy. This problem goes all the way to the root of government and legal system.
- boffinAudio 3y ago
  The corruption of government begins with its secrets. A truly free people keep no secrets.
- iwontberude 3y ago
  There are ways to respond to a question without violating secrecy and being dishonest. It’s like pleading the fifth, there are situations where it is acceptable to not tell the whole truth because it is counter to a law or personal right. In those instances the person needs to explicitly proclaim the basis in which they are obscuring the answer. Giving untruthful, absolute answers about the non-existence of something is inconsistent with the above.

zer00eyz 3y ago

His position on it has been clear for a while: 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla... The votes: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2008/s168 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2008/s168 But this is a MUCH older issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A And if you don't know about Quest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio The entire time period of the Bush admin is a microcosm for unresolved issues of today: Voting machines, government over reach and spying, security, encryption, copyright, bad behavior by corporate entities (M$ has a cohort).