I'm a liberal and even I find myself in agreement with this principle to an extent. Some jobs are really only meant as a stepping stone for high schoolers to get experience, or college kids to get beer money. At least that was true in the past, certainly when I was getting my first job in the mid-80s.

The problem though, is that our job base is shedding its real jobs at an amazing rate. When real jobs are rare, and most employment is comprised of this "learning wheels" work, then it becomes important to ensure that if these are the jobs that are going to replace real economic activity, that they pay something people can live on.

True, but is this a "warrant"? It's an "order" for sure, and it looks like a warrant, but when dealing with this, we've left the realm of human language usage behind. The underpinning of this order is the 3d party doctrine which says the 4th doesn't even apply to such metadata. Eliminate that 3d party foundation, and I think this order goes away. That's not to say they wouldn't come up with some other twisted theory, but this particular order would be broken.

you fucking goatse doll -- who the fuck cares. The "they would have been worse" defense is just crap. Why do I care if the Russians might have been a degree or two worse? That's not my government. I'm concerned about the US, its spying, torture, cronyism etc. So just take this bullshit, grab your ankles, and shove it up that gaping authoritarian hole of yours.

Kinda like NixonCare (aka ObamaCare)

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4041241&cid=44445867

The major problem we have is the third party doctrine, which says you lose 4th amendment protection when you share info with a 3d party because you then have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

But that isn't really true. People share info with 3d parties all the time and expect and demand that information be kept confidential. It really is impossible to participate in the modern world without engaging in such transactions. But the Supreme Court has just gone off the rails on the notion that once you do this, you have no expectation of privacy.

If that theory was really the case, people wouldn't freak out when their email accounts get hacked and people snoop on their mail. People wouldn't go to jail for doing that. People would walk down the street handing out their credit card to everyone they meet. People wouldn't make their facebook pages private ... on and on.

There needs to be legislation that destroys this 3d party doctrine exception to the 4th amendment. The underpinning of all these NSA programs, is that piece of warped Supreme Court logic.

This is such bullshit. He went to these places because from a practical standpoint, they aren't yet America's goatse doll.

The only way political dissent can survive, is if there are safe places to go to and dissent. The US can house dissenters from China, and vice versa. But if the entire world was completely friendly to the US, the space for corruption becomes enormously vast while the space for dissent becomes non-existent.

One thing the Snowden incident has made clear to me, was why people have feared a One World Government. I've never been partial to that perspective, and I've certainly insulted the "black helicopter" types. My perspective was shaped ... go ahead and laugh ... by Star Trek. The Federation of Planets being a benevolent organization allowing people to maximize their potential. On a smaller scale, a Federation of Nations on a single planet could operate the same way. So in my younger years, I was a big fan of globalization seeing it as a way to such a Federation of Nations.

What I failed to take into consideration however, was that politicians don't act from moral and ethical considerations, like those in Star Trek would. So instead of providing a world in which people are free to self-actualize, a One World Government would almost certainly be a repressive, brutal, corrupt, jobs-destroying threat to liberal values.

You know what -- why don't you take this canard about Snowden going to China and Russia, and shove up your goatse hole, and as a good authoritarian, ask your bossman for more.

Don't forget it took the Democrats to pass Nixon's healthcare plan (minus the liberal parts):

citations:

GOP-centric:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/16/ellen-ratner-obama-health-care-nixon-republicans-liberal/

DNC-centric:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html?_r=1&

Medical-Industry-centric:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

Then go Green, it's all the good parts of libertarianism, without the economic extremism.

Exactly. There is a reason they are called PUBLIC servants, and we are called PRIVATE citizens. Their actions are supposed to be public so that we can make sure they are representing our interests and vote accordingly. A representative democracy in which that is impossible is fundamentally broken, and one in which the privacy of all the private citizens is ignored, even more so.

That analogy is so bad, it's no wonder you posted AC. It's bad even by bad slashdot car analogies.

My biggest problem with him is that, in fact, he released so much that I'd have to call him on his statement that he could have had any idea that they would be harmless. His action was more reckless than malicious.

Wrong.

To impugn Manning's conduct, it is often claimed - by people who cannot possibly know this - that he failed to assess the diplomatic cables he was releasing and simply handed them over without having any idea what was in them. Here is Manning explaining the detailed process he undertook to determine their contents and ensure that they would not result in serious harm to innocent individuals; listen on the player above.

Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn't harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.

        "In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website.

        "The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of the Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.

        "The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption was applied only to recording of other information messages that were deemed appropriate for a release for a wide number of individuals. According to the Department of State guidance for a cable to have the SIPDIS caption, it could not include other captions that were intended to limit distribution.

        "The SIPDIS caption was only for information that could only be shared with anyone with access to SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personel, DoD, Department of State, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact that the SIPDIS caption was only for wide distribution made sense to me, given that the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.

        "The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.

        "I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption.

        "I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/bradley-manning-tapes-own-words

He didn't even release the whole cache. Some reporter let slip the password for the encrypted file. http://boingboing.net/2011/08/31/wikileaks-guardian-journalist-negligently-published-password-to-unredacted-cables.html

And arguably, the only reason Iraq ended was that Manning's revelations of war crimes made it politically impossible for the Iraqi government to extend the Status of Forces Agreement which was set to expire in December 2011. Obama tried hard to get it extended, couldn't, and so pulled out. In other words, without Manning, Obama wouldn't be able to claim credit for ending the war in Iraq (the truth of course, is that he just failed to extend it, which isn't in the same moral ballpark as "ending" it).

http://nothingchanged.org/obama_war_in_iraq.html

You are confusing a moral judgment with a legal one. Neither did "bad" things, they both did illegal things. We should as a society ask ourselves, when doing the legal thing is bad, and the illegal thing good, should we not indict the law and pardon the lawbreaker? How you answer that question tells a lot about whether you are an authoritarian minded person, or a person with high moral standards.

And you know what? That entire problem was solved by putting locks on the door. For the 110% solution, the Feds no longer tell people to comply with hijacker's demands.

Everything else, the gutting of the Constitution -- that's just gravy for our rulers.