I think this is a good article, and I agree with Mr. Masnick that it's worth pointing out. If words meant nothing, they wouldn't spend so much time trying to redefine them, as is the case here. Another example is their attempt to redefine the mass surveillance in the US as 'bulk collection', as though to suggest that they only collect it, period.
"I have, and share a Tails torrent, which is open source, Tor enabled, Linux based, used to be anonymous, used by Ed Snowden and Bruce Schneir, but just exactly when do I use it? Everytime I visit my bank? When I want to send an email? Those are both online, and not particularly in my control."
You use it when you want anonymity online, which is not the same as encryption. You should use a VPN for banking and email, not Tails or tor, and you should only trust that VPN up to the TLA point, and not beyond that. These tools can do a lot but it is critical that people understand what they do and do not do.
Glad someone mentioned LUKS. Great for many reasons, including the ability to separate the header (where the keys are stored) from the data itself. Works even better when you're entire drive is filled with random data first.
"A patriot would stand up in the United States and make his case to the American people. But heís refused to do that to this date, at least."
He already has made his case to the American people, and continues to do so.
"But this is a man who has done great damage to his country, violated his oath which he took when he became an employee, and yes, in fact, stole an enormous amount of information and released it to the public, to the detriment of his country."
No, he has not done any damage to his country, only to it's governments credibility, which it itself arguably caused. He took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and he is still not among those who have violated it. He released that evidence to responsible journalists, to the benefit of his country and countrymen.
"QUESTION: Have you softened your stance at all with regard to his alleged conduct here? I noticed earlier this year you said that there were disclosures about the NSA made because of Snowden that you yourself were not aware of that constituted NSA overreach. Does that change the calculus at all for you?
SECRETARY KERRY: Thatís entirely up to the justice system."
I was going to quote that line, too. I refuse to believe that Congress is supposed to be populated by only two halves of one party, that don't represent their constituents. Do people really believe that R/D is the way that it's always been?
Agreed. I don't think that's absolutely the best course of correction, but it is certainly the most feasible given the current state of things. This applies to both government and thieving corporations alike.
Just a guess, but the first thing that comes to my mind is the top secret distinction. For example, if I say one day that I have 60,000 bicycles, and another day say that I have 10,000 blue bicycles, those are not contradictory statements.
Yes, of course, laws are made to outline punishment and recompense for crimes, not to actually prevent the crimes themselves. That's a matter for enforcement, and why we are faced with the enormous problem of enforcement's absence, as you know.
I just wanted to point out, not to you specifically, that something doesn't become legal (even a law or court ruling) just because those who stand to benefit from it say that it is. I'm really responding to these propagandists more than anyone else, because I enjoy language, and I am disgusted by what they try to do with it.