And here I thought the reason they included that into the game was because lots of people were doing this already and the game was inspired by real life.

Any kind of automated mass collection of data without a human in the loop to determine if a threat is credible or not is going to have significant problems. People are sarcastic. People exaggerate. People lie. How many innocent people are being targeted with programs like the NSA has, simply because of a benign association, a bit of sarcasm, or an imperfect algorithm?

While I'd love to believe that the USSS can create some newer, better algorithms to sort through the threats and non-threats they get, if I was one of their protectees I would be awfully nervous if an algorithm was sorting through everything, instead of actual human beings.

You've got it backwards. It's the IRS who will want to use it first.

It's too bad they can't use this technology to stop the conspiracy theorists from revealing all of their conspiracies.

My entire post is a hypothetical. I don't expect Snowden to ever go on trial, fair or not. But I would like to see it happen and I would like for that trial to be fair. I have the same wishes about everybody who has committed a crime.

It's not my fault people have a hard time understanding pretty clear logical statements, and like to imagine other arguments I could be making but absolutely am not.

That is not my position. My position is if you break the law and admit you broke the law it's pretty obvious you're guilty of breaking the law. I said nothing about anyone deserving to go to prison just because they're guilty. In fact I outlined several ways by which a lawbreaker might avoid prison should they avail themselves of the justice system. Sometimes the law is wrong or misapplied.

Perhaps you should read a little closer to my post, then. Here you go:

So yes, I am coming out in favor of a fair trial for Snowden, and people calling me all sorts of names are arguing against a straw man. Please direct your anger elsewhere.

Unfortunately people seem to be imagining my positions on other issues, rather than reading exactly what I said on this issue. I was specifically addressing the possibility of a trial for Snowden. I did not comment on other hypothetical trials because they were not mentioned in the Slashdot article I was commenting on. Staying on topic on a Slashdot story, crazy, I know. I'm a rebel.

If Slashdot were to have a story tomorrow about a potential trial for Clapper, or anyone else you care to name, you would find I am in favor of fair trials for everyone who has committed crimes, not just Snowden.

I am also aware that the system is not always fair. I addressed that point in my original post. Like I said, I want fair trials. I did not say I want unfair trials, or that I want a selective application of justice. Nothing I said is controversial unless people choose to imagine I'm saying things I'm not saying.

I don't expect to see any trials of any sort for anybody involved in this mess. This whole thing is hypothetical.

I'd still like to see fair trials happen. Apparently this is a controversial view.

I don't disagree with him either. But the fact still remains, he's repeatedly and publicly admitted to the crime he's accused of. The crime may be telling the truth, but some truths are illegal to tell.

If we as a society disagree with that law, we have various methods of recourse. But denying that Snowden broke the law is ridiculous.

I believe everyone accused of a crime should be brought to trial and the trial should be fair. How is this not sinking in?

It's not my fault you are choosing to read my posts as some kind of support of the NSA. Like I keep saying, I don't know who you think you're arguing with, but it's not me. Stop trying to make me a straw man.

It gives Apple complete control over their own destiny, which is something Apple likes to have (not exactly news). They now have a language they can tinker with to their hearts' content and no external group or standards body can restrict what they do with it. They've made it very clear they intend to listen to developer feedback and tinker with it, at least in the near future. Certainly even if they do eventually open it up, they'll still be able to extend it however they like and whenever they like in the future, as well.

They had to pull off some pretty crazy stuff just to make Objective-C usable all this time, and it shows. That's the problem Swift solves. It solves it for Apple. It's dramatically new because Apple controls it completely. Apple can and is obviously deploying it. It's not a distraction since developers can still use Objective-C as much as they want, and will only switch to Swift if it offers significant advantages.

I freely admit that there are problems with the system too. But that's a discussion for another topic. I was only here to address specifically this news article. I didn't say anything terribly controversial with my very narrow focus, but unfortunately people decided to imagine my positions on other issues I did not address at all, positions I do not hold.

Geez, a guy can't come out in favor of fair trials without getting called an authoritarian. Who knew?

You are absolutely right. Rosa Parks was a criminal.

If you want to read more into that then there is, feel free, but don't pretend I'm the one saying it. The only thing I am advocating here is that justice be served. In case I was too subtle for you in describing four different ways by which Snowden could still "win" despite being a criminal, let me list those out again.

1) A jury could simply choose to ignore the law and let Snowden free (jury nullification).
2) Snowden can appeal his case if found guilty and get the verdict overturned.
3) If appeals fail, he can get his sentence commuted by a president.
4) If appeals fail, he can get pardoned by a president.

I thoroughly support our justice system. Those four things are part of our justice system. If politicians fail to repeal unjust laws, the system can still free criminals under those laws. Snowden is guilty. If the laws that make him guilty are wrong, staying a fugitive does nothing to change those laws.

Which is why I said "If I was Snowden, I might not be so inclined to trust a US federal court with my fate." I even explained possible scenarios that might deprive him of a fair trial. In case it wasn't clear, I'm not in favor of those scenarios.

But I do think he should get a fair trial. I am of course speaking hypothetically here since it's obvious there's not going to be any kind of trial any time soon. But he's accused of crimes and people accused of crimes are supposed to get a trial by jury and all that nice stuff. Unfortunately for his defense, he's admitted to the crimes he's accused of, which will be awkward when the prosecution reads his statements aloud in court. I did, however, outline four options for him to ultimately avoid a lengthy prison sentence. He should avail himself of those options.