Now, why would dykes want a guy in their life?

(go ahead, I got karma to burn on this tasteless joke)

May I steal that bit? It's one of the best definitions I've ever read.

I thought this worthy of just popping in to comment even before the real interview because the question is so ludicrously misinformed.

I am a strong supporter of personal privacy and freedom of speech. Based on everything that I have seen so far, Eric Snowden will go down in history as a hero. I have been reading lots about him, including his youthful posts to Ars Technica. I think it really interesting to think about the process by which the young man who made those posts became the man we see before us today facing down all the might of the US intelligence services based on a strong belief that mass surveillance is wrong and illegal.

My actions at Wikipedia around this were perfectly honorable and noble and did not violate any rules of any kind. I invited a discussion of information that is already completely public - the user accounts that he used at Ars Technica have been widely reported. I was curious (and am still curious) to find more of his past writings. I am working through various connections to try to talk to him - I had hoped to do so in person when I visit Hong Kong in August, but obviously he's gone from there now.

I think he needs strong support from people well positioned to provide that support. I think that what he did was illegal - quite clearly so. I highly recommend the book "Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobendiance" by former US Supreme Court justice Abe Fortas for a very interesting analysis of the ethics around breaking the law deliberately in the interests of justice.

The knee jerk reaction by some in the Internet community has been, as usual, annoying. They call it anonymous "coward" for a reason - it's easy to sling mud and pretend to have the high moral ground if you feel completely and utterly unconcerned about the facts of reality.

It's a bit like Alien vs. Predator, isn't it?

Whoever wins. We lose.

Doesn't matter.

We're looking for holes that work AGAINST the interests of big money, not FOR them.

If we reject DRM, studios cannot push their self proclaimed "blockbusters" loaded with ads for movies we don't give half a shit about down our throats?

Just so I know, are you trying to argue for or against DRM?

In short, we had our freedom because we didn't really use it. Much like the telcos could easily offer unlimited local calls as long as people didn't really stay online 24/7.

What you call a problem seems to be just the idea behind the whole spiel...

What? My mother was a saint!

I'd say as long as there is a publicly accessible "decoder" available AND it can be determined from the message what decoder is to be used (or the information is available at request), it's not encrypted.

Sir, I must request that you dress according to the occasion. We're not on the internet here, we have standards!

Which is about as likely as a revocation of a broadcasting license for breaking ad limits.

Face it, that law would only codify the fact that people already don't give a shit about the encryption ban.

Is it to milk money from me whenever I want to know who keeps trying to hack me or is it to keep me from finding out who it is because such "sensitive information" will only be available to governments and the content industry?

The tinfoil-hat enthusiast in me would say that this may be one of the intentions behind it.

Good ol' times. Back when we were the free world. Remember those times? Life was good. The older ones might even remember it.

Be honest. Do you think this would happen now?