No, he demonstrated that a hero will be called a traitor by the actual traitors he exposed.

When did he betray USA? When he exposed massive surveillance, which is almost certainly unconstitutional? When he exposed the fact that NSA is operating without any practical oversight? Or the fact that most (if not all) of the Congress has no right to know whether they are being spied on? Or the fact that the highest NSA officials lied, and continue to lie under oath? He broke a low, granted. That makes him a criminal, not automatically a traitor. And in this instance, it also makes him a hero, since the law he broke is oppressive and should have never been on the books.

This fascinating article makes it look quite possible, if not plausible. Seriously good read, and I am not a biologist.

In this case, however, the laws he broke are oppressive: something you forgot to mention. The reason he cannot return is because USA does not have sufficient whistle-blowing protections. Should a citizen be able to report an illegal activity and a gross abuse of power, regardless of the classification of relevant documents? In a democratic society, it should be the citizen's duty, and an activity protected by the law. So we need to be careful to give Snowden praise he deserves for bringing our attention both to the illegal activities, and to the sad state of our legal system.

Let me google it for you

Thanks! Indeed, it's almost word for word:

But unlike UDHR, this is merely lip service. They give it with one hand, and with the other hand they take it away completely. If a state gives out exclusive distribution rights, then third parties have the right to censor any kind of sharing (3a). Anything but pure flattery can be construed as disrespecting someone's reputation (3a). Anything at all can and have been construed as threatening national security: in particular, any kind of political speech (3b). Sadly, this document does nothing to protect the right to freedom of expression.

UDHR article 19:

Since enforcing copyright against people who share information online non-commercially is clearly a violation of a human right according to UDHR, to which UK is a signatory, how about throwing copyright enforcers in jail instead? How long is the public going to put up with this oppression?

AdblockPlus already sold out to advertizers.

Please, stop spreading the myth of "standard codec" and "quality". Anything will be a standard if it is crammed down the people's throats. As for quality, please. All Web video is shit. Talking about the differences in "quality" between mp4, theora, and webm is like talking about the shades of dung. 5 minute videos of cats playing piano and girls masturbating produce exactly the same effect, no matter the codec. On a smartphone screen too. Give me a break. Feeding the patent mafia, who are basically censoring Wikipedia for millions of users, is a much bigger issue than any subjective difference in video quality. Think it through. Thanks to patents, copyrights, and non-free software, many spy-phone users can't see the videos at all, and you keep talking about a marginal improvement in "quality"?

If this device is fully free and open, then it can obviously spoof every one of its IDs, and provide a strong defense against location tracking (although not perfect, if one wants to jump from tower to tower while keeping the IP connection intact). The problem, as you can see, is not just with the device, but with the cellular providers, who forbid anonymous users. So if this phone can use the cellular network in USA, then it automatically will have to be non-free, and the whole thing is a scam. In particular, their claims of privacy and security would be straight-up lies. If it does not, however, use the towers (wifi only), then it has a chance of being true to its claimed purpose.

This is not the main reason why it should be open source, nor is "open source" enough, unless we are using a definition compatible with the free software definition. In fact, both hardware and software should be free, documented, and open in order to justify the basic security and privacy claims the manufacturer is making.

As for "open source", the freedom to distribute modified copies (which is not clearly implied) is paramount to anything aspiring to be secure. If a bug is discovered, and a patch is available, the software will remain insecure if the authorized distributor refuses to apply the patch. Free software does not have this problem.

As for the order of your list, all the things you named are very useful indeed, but they are not worth crap unless the entire thing is free software, and the hardware is open and certified by third parties without special interests. One binary blob makes all security and privacy claims a lie, plain and simple. Not an honest mistake, not a misunderstanding: these people surely understand security, so when they start selling "secure" binary blobs, they will be lying through their teeth.

I dunno about voice calls, but messaging, at least, can be Torified, and that would be a much tougher nut to crack.

Oh, he understands everything. He just hates that people are free to express themselves in ways not approved by the ruling elite.

+ 10% more pink on everything. Can't go wrong with pink.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2014/02/image/

Stop with space.com slashvertisements already, it's nauseating.

space.com are leeches who are not competent enough to link to the frigging Hubble site. You know, the very minimum of what one can do to credit the work of the people who actually built the space telescope, took these amazing pictures, processed them, and brought them to the masses.

A car that respects the owner's freedom would give full access to the odometer, so the scheme you describe will be too easy to cheat. Instead, it may be necessary to apply the same flat rate to all non-commercial vehicles, and make commercial operators self-report, keeping them honest with hefty fines when they are found cheating.