Eventually there'll be so many reactions, we'll have special NFTs for the millionth reaction and more! /s
On a more serious note: is it just me or is this really just a new tulip wave? I get that crypto is seemingly here to stay...but NFTs? can't someone re-mint something on the blockchain and claim it is the real one? For example, if I were to re-mint Dorsey's first tweet...do people know enough to look out for scams like that? Granted, I bet Dorsey would have to endorse it to get widespread appreciation, but then again fools are fooled by fools gold.
> do people know enough to look out for scams like that?
Yes, because the only people buying them are in on the scam. No one is looking to buy Jack Dorseys 1st tweet for millions of dollars, they are looking to buy an advertisement so you too think you could become an overnight millionaire you just need to join their platform and buy in first. It’s the same thing as the Nigerian Prince that won the lottery but can’t cash it, so he will give you the winning lottery ticket if you just give him $1,000.
I think most economists figured out that crypto will eventually crash, and the status quo will eventually turn back to normal. With that in mind, they gave up and started recommending people buy Bitcoin for their retirement while they buy back their valuable stocks in return.
> Shortly after being charged with espionage, Snowden flew to Russia, where he was granted asylum, then residency.
The article seems neutral about Snowden, but this characterization of events is bad reporting.
He did not fly with the intent of staying in Russia. He was grounded and his passport revoked by the US gov. mid travel, stranding him in Russia, in the airport, for over a month.
Eventually Russia granted him long term status there.
It's particularly bad because it's a pattern that people need to know about. Being trapped politically somewhere like that happened to both Snowden and Assange.
The fact that what is legal? That a company can revoke a passport issued by itself? Seems pretty reasonable.
Maybe people could disagree on specific examples, but the principle seems fine. US passports say in them that they can be revoked for a variety of reasons.
Tell that to Charles Taylor or Slobodan Milošević.
As far as it’s predecessor my guess if you are referencing the League of Nations rather than the international military tribunals that conducted the Nuremberg Trials that hung 10 Nazi’s with ropes to short to break their necks and choked them to death.
Assange is an Australian citizen, and the US want d to lock bim up for publishing leaked information, while Snowden id an US citizen and leaked the info by himself.
If you can't compare, why not try contrasting? The differences in their cases should tell you exactly what the US government cares about. It's not citizenship and it's not journalism.
Then he got "stuck" in Russia, which suited Putin just fine. Russia doesn't care about Snowden's travel documents being revoked and would happily fly him to Ecuador if it matched their interests.
The article's timeline of Snowden flying to Russia after being charged with espionage looks correct.
That link shows he gave up details of US government espionage on Chinese networks. The third link I posted details how Snowden tried to gain asylum in Hong Kong.
Edit: I can't respond due to downvotes: Tell me why you think he released a list of compromised Chinese systems and when they were compromised while he was in China. Tell me why you think he chose to flee to Hong Kong and talk to reporters there. It seems obvious to me why, but maybe you have another explanation.
the first link shows that the documents he leaked had details about spying on chinese networks; the third link says he initially intended to try to fight extradition in hk.
what neither of them say, and what you are accusing him of, is that he tried to trade intelligence for asylum.
Tell me why you think he released a list of compromised Chinese systems and when they were compromised while he was in China. Tell me why you think he chose to flee to Hong Kong and contact reporters there. It seems obvious to me why, but maybe you have another explanation.
I wouldn't go that far. I think Hanlon's Razor applies to Snowden's case. He seemed absolutely convinced that PRISM was a big story, which anybody with a fifth grade reading ability could tell was a non-story. https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2020/05/11/2013-edwa...
If he were really a Russian asset, he wouldn't have made a claim that he has since had to stop claiming (instead playing up phone metadata collection for reporters), or he would have admitted that he was wrong to gain credibility. Instead, he looked like a fool and just stopped talking about it out of embarrassment.
Maybe 'lern_too_spel' means something much worse. Like the product of such blanket surveillance being used by the spooks to blackmail our purported democratically elected leaders. A bit like the Praetorian Guard ended up effectively ruling the Roman Empire.
"He seemed absolutely convinced that PRISM was a big story, which anybody with a fifth grade reading ability could tell was a non-story."
What do you mean by this? I read the article, or at least skimmed it. Is it because everyone siphons everyone's data and the fact that the gov is doing it is unremarkable?
Since then, transparency reports from the companies confirmed it.
To this day, you'll only ever hear Snowden and Greenwald talking about phone metadata collection because they were so ridiculed about their PRISM claims.
This isn't correct information. I thought you were referring to something more meta, and not a reverse-conspiracy theory that the government _isn't_ doing what we all have seen it is. Additionally: Your link doesn't support the general claim that the gov isn't siphoning data, but provides some evidence that it doesn't have a _direct_ link to data creators. It simply states that it's using mechanisms like NSLs to obtain such information, which is basically the same.
> that the government _isn't_ doing what we all have seen it is.
Where have you seen that the government is siphoning Americans' data via PRISM? The slides clearly show it js a data integration project to get data from the FBI's DITU. Claiming otherwise as you have is the conspiracy theory because it is based on no documents released either by Snowden or the government, and if it is happening, there would have to be a vast conspiracy to keep it secret when even something as simple as phone metadata collection is illegal.
The documents clearly state that PRISM ingests Section 702 content, not NSL metadata, so that just shows a gross misunderstanding not only of the actual primary documents but of Greenwald's initial misreporting of them as well.
Edit: Response to comment below due to rate limiting. If you want to learn something and clean up the formatting of this thread, upvote my comments, so I can put this in a new comment in the correct part of the thread:
No, I said very specifically that PRISM was a non-story, despite what Snowden clearly believed.
NSL letters [sic] are for metadata collection. Of those, Snowden released documents about a single illegal program using NSLs, which was phone metadata collection. If he had understood the documents he was releasing, he would have pushed that story instead of PRISM.
"It's because the government isn't siphoning everybody's information"
which is a blanket statement, and now you're limiting that statement to being via PRISM, which is a tightening of the requirements you were talking about. The link you posted states that the government is siphoning Americans' data via NSL letters and the like, which is true. I do not know enough about PRISM to say one way or another, but I can see in the last few comments you're thrashing on this.
No, I said very specifically that PRISM was a non-story, despite what Snowden clearly believed.
NSL letters [sic] are for metadata collection. Of those, Snowden released documents about a single illegal extant program using NSLs, which was phone metadata collection. If he had understood the documents he was releasing, he would have pushed that story instead of PRISM.
That quoted statement is true and is especially true with regard to PRISM, which is the context. That PRISM isn't what Snowden claimed it was is my main point. Do you disagree with any of what I have said here?
If he was a Russian asset, wouldn't it be smarter to keep working within the NSA and leak the knowledge/tech to them?
Now you might next claim he was probably doing that and he fled as he was about to be caught by the NSA, but if they had suspicions of espionage and was about to arrest him, they would've gone to the press, that a (suspected) Russian mole had escaped and shown their evidence...
He flew to Russia because he knew he'd get asylum there. Even was in contact with Russian diplomats while in Hong Kong, according to Putin himself.[0]
Not sure why it's so important for Snowden people to push the narrative that it was some fortuitous accident. It obviously was strategized in some way, even if it were just some sort of backup country.
it literally just says he flew to russia. which is a fact. do you want some multi-paragraph explanation of the contingencies every time its briefly mentioned?
> He did not fly with the intent of staying in Russia. He was grounded and his passport revoked by the US gov. mid travel, stranding him in Russia, in the airport, for over a month.
From my memory: his passport was revoked when he was in China (I think Hong Kong). A confusing sequence of events followed, and then he ended up in Russia somehow.
Honestly, after the intelligence agencies tried to come after him for Royalties [0] when he released "Permanent Record' I think this is a good resolution.
I sent him BTC and downloaded an epub of it online, but he deserved way more for what his efforts. Honestly, the first chapters was a 90s Internet kid's manifesto and why we fell in love with it in the first place and all the promise it held.
Hopefully he can help the families back in Hong Kong that helped him escape to help them move to Canada and the UK now that the CCP has illegally annexed the territory.
I agree that "my friends and family aren't rushing out to buy NFTs", but what makes you think it's self promotion? I honestly think it's pretty neat that a collection of random people were able to pool capital and "invest" in stuff without forming a business, opening a bank account, etc.
I actually don't think that is what happening. I think these DAO's are promotional vehicles to drive an increase in hype and price of the underlying tokens on NFT platforms. There are going to be suckers that come along and help the promoters expand the market.
There are technology gaps like Optimism that are funded by VC's. This is a promotional gap funded by... who knows? But it's likely a fund.
Genuine question: What's to stop someone for minting another block, with something that has previously been minted-e.g. Dorsey's first tweet, and pawning that off as the real deal? (nb4 the tweet/NFT is too well known. Consider lesser NFTs.) I'm sure a lot of people will catch on, but that certainly won't be everybody.
59 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 134 ms ] threadOn a more serious note: is it just me or is this really just a new tulip wave? I get that crypto is seemingly here to stay...but NFTs? can't someone re-mint something on the blockchain and claim it is the real one? For example, if I were to re-mint Dorsey's first tweet...do people know enough to look out for scams like that? Granted, I bet Dorsey would have to endorse it to get widespread appreciation, but then again fools are fooled by fools gold.
Yes, because the only people buying them are in on the scam. No one is looking to buy Jack Dorseys 1st tweet for millions of dollars, they are looking to buy an advertisement so you too think you could become an overnight millionaire you just need to join their platform and buy in first. It’s the same thing as the Nigerian Prince that won the lottery but can’t cash it, so he will give you the winning lottery ticket if you just give him $1,000.
The article seems neutral about Snowden, but this characterization of events is bad reporting.
He did not fly with the intent of staying in Russia. He was grounded and his passport revoked by the US gov. mid travel, stranding him in Russia, in the airport, for over a month.
Eventually Russia granted him long term status there.
That fact that this is legal is... sketchy. Same with Shamima Begum, for that matter.
Maybe people could disagree on specific examples, but the principle seems fine. US passports say in them that they can be revoked for a variety of reasons.
As far as it’s predecessor my guess if you are referencing the League of Nations rather than the international military tribunals that conducted the Nuremberg Trials that hung 10 Nazi’s with ropes to short to break their necks and choked them to death.
Assange is an Australian citizen, and the US want d to lock bim up for publishing leaked information, while Snowden id an US citizen and leaked the info by himself.
He was charged with espionage while in Hong Kong. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ch...
China didn't want Snowden in Hong Kong but also did not want to appear to acquiesce to US demands, so Snowden tried to get to Ecuador, which would grant him asylum. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-hongkong-idU...
Then he got "stuck" in Russia, which suited Putin just fine. Russia doesn't care about Snowden's travel documents being revoked and would happily fly him to Ecuador if it matched their interests.
The article's timeline of Snowden flying to Russia after being charged with espionage looks correct.
> He initially flew to Hong Kong and tried to gain asylum there by sharing details of Chinese network targets.
this accusation is unsubstantiated in the link you provide
Edit: I can't respond due to downvotes: Tell me why you think he released a list of compromised Chinese systems and when they were compromised while he was in China. Tell me why you think he chose to flee to Hong Kong and talk to reporters there. It seems obvious to me why, but maybe you have another explanation.
what neither of them say, and what you are accusing him of, is that he tried to trade intelligence for asylum.
What’s the deal with airplane passports?
This one aspect of the Snowden saga has always intrigued me. What mechanism actually led to Snowden stuck in Moscow, an airline’s boarding procedure?
Keep telling yourself that. The dude has been a Russian asset from the start.
If he were really a Russian asset, he wouldn't have made a claim that he has since had to stop claiming (instead playing up phone metadata collection for reporters), or he would have admitted that he was wrong to gain credibility. Instead, he looked like a fool and just stopped talking about it out of embarrassment.
Why?
What do you mean by this? I read the article, or at least skimmed it. Is it because everyone siphons everyone's data and the fact that the gov is doing it is unremarkable?
Since then, transparency reports from the companies confirmed it.
To this day, you'll only ever hear Snowden and Greenwald talking about phone metadata collection because they were so ridiculed about their PRISM claims.
Where have you seen that the government is siphoning Americans' data via PRISM? The slides clearly show it js a data integration project to get data from the FBI's DITU. Claiming otherwise as you have is the conspiracy theory because it is based on no documents released either by Snowden or the government, and if it is happening, there would have to be a vast conspiracy to keep it secret when even something as simple as phone metadata collection is illegal.
The documents clearly state that PRISM ingests Section 702 content, not NSL metadata, so that just shows a gross misunderstanding not only of the actual primary documents but of Greenwald's initial misreporting of them as well.
Edit: Response to comment below due to rate limiting. If you want to learn something and clean up the formatting of this thread, upvote my comments, so I can put this in a new comment in the correct part of the thread:
No, I said very specifically that PRISM was a non-story, despite what Snowden clearly believed.
NSL letters [sic] are for metadata collection. Of those, Snowden released documents about a single illegal program using NSLs, which was phone metadata collection. If he had understood the documents he was releasing, he would have pushed that story instead of PRISM.
"It's because the government isn't siphoning everybody's information"
which is a blanket statement, and now you're limiting that statement to being via PRISM, which is a tightening of the requirements you were talking about. The link you posted states that the government is siphoning Americans' data via NSL letters and the like, which is true. I do not know enough about PRISM to say one way or another, but I can see in the last few comments you're thrashing on this.
NSL letters [sic] are for metadata collection. Of those, Snowden released documents about a single illegal extant program using NSLs, which was phone metadata collection. If he had understood the documents he was releasing, he would have pushed that story instead of PRISM.
Now you might next claim he was probably doing that and he fled as he was about to be caught by the NSA, but if they had suspicions of espionage and was about to arrest him, they would've gone to the press, that a (suspected) Russian mole had escaped and shown their evidence...
Could the buyer be liable for dealing with Snowden? e.g. abetting a fugitive?
Criminal liability is not absolved by making a donation..
Not sure why it's so important for Snowden people to push the narrative that it was some fortuitous accident. It obviously was strategized in some way, even if it were just some sort of backup country.
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-admits-early-snowden-cont...
The intention is completely different.
From my memory: his passport was revoked when he was in China (I think Hong Kong). A confusing sequence of events followed, and then he ended up in Russia somehow.
I sent him BTC and downloaded an epub of it online, but he deserved way more for what his efforts. Honestly, the first chapters was a 90s Internet kid's manifesto and why we fell in love with it in the first place and all the promise it held.
Hopefully he can help the families back in Hong Kong that helped him escape to help them move to Canada and the UK now that the CCP has illegally annexed the territory.
He also had a child, too.
Congrats, Ed, you earned it!
0: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/17/politics/justice-departme...
[0] https://decrypt.co/66933/why-this-dao-bought-snowden-nft
There are technology gaps like Optimism that are funded by VC's. This is a promotional gap funded by... who knows? But it's likely a fund.