How did the NSA hack our emails?

[Snowhog]

Nope. What belongs in the loo stays in the loo.

[SteveRiley]

That's a bit of a strange oath, really. I don't get how a country that wrote the separation of church and state into its constitution manages to come up with things like this ... Add that last part on at the end as a personal touch if you like, but making it a part of the "official oath" is just weird. Could you take this oath seriously?

Good info on the history and development of oaths of office in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_o...#United_States

One can substitute "affirm" for "swear," and then omit "so help me God." (Section 7, chapter XX, Judiciary Act of 1789)

It's an example of America's continual flirting with religion. The men who founded this country recognized the damage that state-sponsored religion could cause. But they weren't complete non-believers themselves. So while it's common to see references to some form of almighty ("...endowed by their Creator..."), you also see deliberate attempts to avoid imposing belief or adherence on the general population.

[Feathers McGraw]

Thanks for those links, here's the relevant text for the benefit of others:

SEC. 7. And be it [further] enacted, That the Supreme Court, and the district courts shall have power to appoint clerks for their respective courts, and that the clerk for each district court shall be clerk also of the circuit court in such district, and each of the said clerks shall, before he enters upon the execution of his office, take the following oath or affirmation, to wit: "I, A. B., being appointed clerk of , do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all the orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of the said court, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties of my said office, according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God." Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath.

I had to look up the difference between affirming and swearing to understand:

From http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-...in-an-oath.htm

Many oaths of office contain the text “I, ________ do swear (or affirm)...” When people take such an oath, they have the option of choosing between swearing and affirming, depending on the region where they live. When someone opts to affirm rather than to swear, the oath is more properly known as an affirmation. The difference between the two may seem subtle, but to some people, it is extremely important. It also continues to be an issue in some regions of the world.

Some Christians prefer to say “I affirm” rather than “I swear” because of a section in the Book of Matthew, in which Christ is said to have specifically advised His followers against swearing. Quakers, Mennonites, and members of some other Christian sects choose to not to swear because they believe firmly in telling the truth at all times, and feel that swearing to tell the truth goes against their religious values because it suggests that they might lie at other times.

So basically its' a fudge so that you can swear an oath without calling it swearing.

[Snowhog]

Affirmation in law

An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath, but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath; it is thus legally binding but not considered a religious oath.

So, the difference (as I understand it) is to whom one is declaring that the aforesaid testimony is truthful -- God or a Governmental entity.

[Feathers McGraw]

Thanks Snowhog.

The whole concept of making an affirmation is a bit of a weird one - which comes first, obedience to the entity or the oath that 'ensures' obedience to the entity, based on obedience to the entity? Lol.

Circular reasoning...

[Feathers McGraw]

As for those three articles about the document leaks, I've read the first and am reading the second. I understand the point he's arguing, but don't agree because:

1) Dumping info that could possibly result in spies getting lynched, etc. would give the agencies ammo to launch at Snowden: "Look at this person who was killed as a direct result of the leaks, look at these photos of them with their young children, read these testimonials from 'pillars of the community' about how moral and kind they were, and how many schools they painted in Africa"

The sad truth is that the media would quite easily be flooded with that kind of story and nobody would even hear about the rest.

Bad tactics, if Snowden is to achieve his stated aim.

2) You don't necessarily need the technical details of how some of the programs are being implemented to know that you don't agree with them, i.e. "the NSA can see everything you're sending to Google", doesn't necessarily have to be accompanied by "they're doing it by capturing data between Google's data centres". Yes, the second piece of information allowed Google to react but it hasn't changed the NSA one bit, which is the aim of the game.

3) The author says he wants to see the rest of the PRISM slides, but he doesn't know what's on them. Once you've released them to everyone, you can't take them back after having a look.

4) It makes sense that there is some information that you wouldn't want everyone to have - the whereabouts and schedule of senior judges' family members, for example. Might be useful if you were going to kidnap them in order to influence those judges' decisions, but that information just doesn't serve any purpose in the hands of "goodies".

Once you concede that such information exists, you're just left weighing how important you think it is that you have all the information vs how much you don't want "badies" to have that other information.

The current situation is a pretty good way of doing things, if you're going to vet the information at all: I trust 3 journalists from 3 different countries/cultures a lot more than I trust Greenwald on his own. If one of them was holding back and the others weren't, people would find out (by comparing the releases) and the journalist that held back would lose the respect/money that their business depends on.

Thus, the info that is relevant is released and the addresses of judges' family members isn't.

[SteveRiley]

God or a Governmental entity.

Is there a difference? LOLOLOLOL

I've read the first and am reading the second. I understand the point he's arguing, but don't agree

I'm shocked! Is this the first time you and I have disagreed on something?

[Feathers McGraw]

I'm shocked! Is this the first time you and I have disagreed on something?

I think it might be, actually! Still friends though, right?

[richb]

I lean toward Feathers on this one as well. It shows that there are differing opinions on surveillance, not a big surprise. There is no consensus, with even the courts disagreeing. Of course these are two judges, two individuals writing an opinion. I would imagine it eventually goes to the Supreme Court. It will be very interesting what they decide. But they have erred as well in the past. Perhaps erred is the wrong word. They have issued opinions that were disputed by many at the time of the opinion and remain so to this day, after many years have passed. So, while these opinions are the law of the land, they remain contentious in public discourse. Roe v Wade is a prime example.

I would hope we are all still friends here regardless of widely differing views. Spend enough time here and one can predict with some accuracy which side of an issue someone will fall on. However Steve keeps me guessing.

[SteveRiley]

I think it might be, actually! Still friends though, right?

Lemme think about that for a bit............................................... yeah, OK, sure!

However Steve keeps me guessing.

My wife would say the same thing. haha

[GreyGeek]

.... I would hope we are all still friends here regardless of widely differing views. ....

Richb, this discussion doesn't even rise to the level of one of the top ten. We've had some doozies on this forum, but they remain peaceable for one reason: we don't allow personal attacks or insults. Everyone has an opinion and everyone has a right to express it in the social forum, and if one is willing to express their opinion for others to read one should be willing to read the opinions of others. That rule is what has made this forum great and prevented it from degenerating into a chaos, or allowing the brighter lights to bamboozle the lesser lights.

BTW, Steve is easy to figure out. All you have to consider is .... wait, let me think a minute..., uh, just consider that ... no that's not it. Can I get back to you on that?

[Feathers McGraw]

...and prevented it from degenerating into a chaos

That in itself is debatable

I quite like this forum's particular brand of constructive chaos. We seem to get off topic incredibly quickly, but often end up talking about something even more useful/interesting than the original topic!

[GreyGeek]

Yup, IMO it is the best Linux forum on the web, with some of the brightest Linux and Windows minds around. It's also a family friendly forum and gender neutral.

[Feathers McGraw]

It's also ... gender neutral.

Is this really a problem on other forums?

[GreyGeek]

Is this really a problem on other forums?

So some gals say. I don't stay around forums that get vulgar, crude, rude or disrespectful of women or minorities, or use "rtfm" often, so I don't keep track.