Edward Snowden

Hillary Clinton's Staff Turned to Snowden's Wisdom for Cybersecurity Advice

Would she allow the rest of us to be equally protected?

|

Edward Snowden
Sunshinepress GDA Photo Service/Newscom

Hillary Clinton may want Edward Snowden to stand trial for leaking information about the federal government's expansive surveillance of American citizens, but apparently that doesn't mean her campaign won't take advantage of his cybersecurity expertise.

In a tech piece posted over at Vanity Fair, reporter Nick Bilton notes that the Clinton campaign has jumped on an application called "Signal," a heavily encrypted private communications program. A visit to the site of developers Open Whisper Systems shows an endorsement by both Snowden and Laura Poitras, the filmmaker who made the documentary Citizenfour about Snowden's whistleblowing.

And in Vanity Fair's piece, the fact that the app was "Snowden-approved" was used to encourage its adoption to keep communications out of the hands of Russian hackers.

Snowden raised an eyebrow about it on Twitter, noting that Clinton called for him to face trial and possible imprisonment just last year. (I would add here that Clinton has said Snowden should have gone through the proper channels and incorrectly believes he would have whistleblower protections.)

Techdirt also takes note that Clinton herself is kind of vague about where she stands on cybersecurity policy when it comes to areas like encryption. She's one of those politicians who wants to have it both ways. It seems clear that she doesn't necessarily support mandatory "back doors" that require tech companies to provide access to law enforcement or the government to bypass encryption, but she also believes in the unicorn that Silicon Valley eggheads can come up with some magical key that only the "good guys" (the government will obviously determine who those might be) can use. She has previously said she wants some sort of "Manhattan Project" between the tech industry and the government to figure it all out.

Maybe Clinton's tech policy briefing that her campaign released in June might help straighten out where she actually stands on tech privacy and security? Sadly no. Try and tease an actual policy out of this paragraph on encryption:

Hillary rejects the false choice between privacy interests and keeping Americans safe. She was a proponent of the USA Freedom Act, and she supports Senator Mark Warner and Representative Mike McCaul's idea for a national commission on digital security and encryption. This commission will work with the technology and public safety communities to address the needs of law enforcement, protect the privacy and security of all Americans that use technology, assess how innovation might point to new policy approaches, and advance our larger national security and global competitiveness interests.

All throughout the tech initiative paper, it is chock full of extremely specific proposals (which I've critiqued before as essentially a call for tech industry government lobbying for handouts). But the above paragraph says very little but to say that they'll look into the matter.

There's two possibilities to consider: One, that her campaign maybe recognizes that trying to fight encryption is a doomed effort, and the committee is being promoted as the place for the negotiations to go and quietly die. Alternatively, though, there's the terrible precedent of President Barack Obama's administration, which made a big deal out of protecting consumer data privacy. It publicly opposed legislation to promote the sharing of private consumer data with the government in order to help fight cybercrime. But then it quietly worked with lawmakers to get what it wanted, and we ended up with a law that encourages private companies to hand your consumer data over to the government in order to fight all sorts of types of crimes, and then subsequently immunizes these companies from financial liability for breaches.

This was an increase in government surveillance authority, without a doubt. Is there any reason to expect anything different from Clinton, who is openly promising to continue pretty much all of Obama's policies?

Below, Reason's Nick Gillespie interviewed Snowden earlier in the year:

NEXT: Federalist Society teleforum on pipeline takings

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wow!

    A posr critical of Hitlery Kkklinton. Is Nick on vacation?

    1. And Trump isn’t even mentioned!

      Reason is shilling for Trump!

    2. “Hitlery Kkklinton”

      No message board should have more than one Mike M.

    3. You’re an idiot. I’ll bet that Nick has been more critical of Hillary than almost any other writer on the site.

      1. “You’re an idiot”
        You’re entirely too kind; idiots are nearly that stooooopid.

  2. Meanwhile democrats seek to assassinate whistleblower

    http://sputniknews.com/news/20…..trump.html

    Bob Beckel, a Hillary strategist enraged by WikiLeaks dump of DNC files showing collusion between the Democratic Party, Clinton’s campaign and the mainstream media, called openly for the next president of the United States to assassinate Julian Assange for what he views as the whistleblower improperly intervening in the US election. “I mean, a dead man can’t leak stuff,” Beckel said of Assange. “The guy’s a traitor, a treasonist, and? and he has broken every law in the United States. The guy ought to be ? and I’m not for the death penalty ? so, if I’m not for the death penalty, there’s only one way to do it, illegally shoot the son of a b—-.”

    Obama’s biographer and Time Magazine writer Michael Grunweld even tweeting “I can’t wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange” only days after the publication printed the article “WikiLeaks is Getting Scarier Than the NSA.”

    1. Ummm….Bob, you realize Assange is Australian, right?

      1. Forget it, he’s rolling.

        1. Perhaps this will assuage his Assange guilt.

    2. “I’m not for the death penalty”

      Just extra-judicial murder.

      1. Trump says something, something that might kinda indicate violence toward federal judges. Media goes wild. Hilary surrogates explicitly call for murder of someone they perceive as a political threat. Media, including Reason Magazine, silent. I’m starting to see a trend here

      2. I love it when these shit-stains reveal their true colors.

      3. Leftists are against the death penalty except for the people they feel are the enemy. Then they want them killed and nobody feels it is either hypocrisy or a sure sign that leftists are totalitarian scum.

    3. “WikiLeaks is Getting Scarier Than the NSA.”

      See the way the Democrats shift the debate?

      1. “WikiLeaks is Getting Scarier Than the NSA.”

        Scary is in the eye of the beholder.

        1. Well, actually, politicians are supposed to be deathly afraid of WikiLeaks. That’s kind of its whole point, isn’t it?

    4. “collusion between the Democratic Party, Clinton’s campaign and the mainstream media”

      “improperly intervening in the US election.”

      Because not allowing the elite to surreptitiously steal elections, subvert the will and nullify the votes of 300 million people is improper intervention.

      It isnt just morals they lack, it’s self awareness as well. The Democrat party has been taken over by the worst kinds of people.

      1. It isnt just morals they lack, it’s self awareness as well. The Democrat party has been taken over by the worst kinds of people.

        They all get paid to doublethink. It’s the ones who do it for free you got to worry about.

      2. Nothing says “improperly intervening in a US election” like providing voters with facts.

        1. ^This.

          Beckel isn’t exactly known for his integrity. Plus, if he’s so comfortable throwing assassination around for the likes of an information compiler, I’d like to remind him that he is a much easier target to hit, compared to Assange.

          This

          vs.

          This

  3. The third possibilty explaining the vague and noncommittal answer is that nobody over there is entirely sure if the question of end-to-end encryption has something to do with the infield-fly rule, the nickel defense, or maybe the new restrictor-plate rules and they don’t want to look stupid by giving a firm answer that reveals they have no idea what the hell any of that shit means. I mean, sure, just because you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about doesn’t mean you aren’t supremely qualified to pass legislation on the matter, but the people who do know more about it than you do for some strange reason get kinda prickly about it. Especially if “the people who know more about it than you do” includes eight-year olds and retarded people and what are technically known as “rutabagas”.

    1. +1 Confused writer not understanding that what the first amendment protects is the Huffington Post’s discrestion as to what they publish or not publish.

      1. Doesn’t matter whether it’s a 1A issue or not. What’s important is what it says about the media being in the tank for one political party, to the point of actively suppressing information which they had already published.

        1. Oh, yes. That goes without saying.

          After all, in the DNC leaks you had journalists coordinating the questions they were going to ask of Hillary with her campaign. This is about as surprising as a dick pic from wiener.

          1. This is about as surprising as a dick pic from wiener.

            We need to make that a meme.

        2. I am beginning to wonder if that view is wrong Papaya.

          It looks more to me like they are in the tank for a certain candidate than for just the party. There has been too much cult of personality bullshit going on since 2008. They latch onto one person, and the further left and more authoritarian they are the more they like them.

          This really is beginning to creep me out.

          1. Nah. The DemOp Media has been doing this for years and years. Its not Hillary, its the Party. This year it got cranked up to eleven because Trump.

            1. I saw today that CNN put one of Trump’s tweets on screen, but deleted the “crooked” out of “crooked Hillary.” Obviously, they knew they’d get caught — the scary thing is they just don’t care anymore. And they’re doing it for Hillary! What if the Democrat candidate was actually good?!

              1. I saw that. Just shameless.

      2. I agree. He doesn’t know the difference between Congress making no law and Hillary calling a trusted contact at the Huffington Post and demanding his ass get fired.

        1. It worked though, didn’t it? How many other DNC operatives with bylines do you think will put out any material critical of Hillary other than to say we the stupid people don’t deserve someone as great as her, after this show of force?

          The days when totalitarians actually threw their enemies in jail or killed them are no longer needed. Soft totalitarianism allows you to ruin people’s lives and drag out the pain and suffering while giving all others a good example of what awaits those that dare fight the machine.

          I almost wish these scumbags would go back to imprisoning and killing their enemies so the slow people would not have such a hard time grasping that what we have now is the same evil with better PR.

    2. Tfw you agree with someone and you are completely turned off by their whining and hope they spontaneously combust mid-pity party:

      D.G. Seaman
      ?@d_seaman

      I didn’t spend a decade working in media for free, experiencing every humiliation and “due payment” to be summarily tossed @ariannahuff.

      Give your side of the story. Do a pushup for once in your life. Stop tweeting.

      1. “I didn’t spend a decade working in media for free, experiencing every humiliation and “due payment” to be summarily tossed @ariannahuff.”

        I think you did, Mr. Jizz.

      2. Can someone parse tweetspeak. Is this a response to Arianna Huffington?

        1. He is tweeting to, or “at” her. That is what his entire Twitter feed seems to be.

          1. Geez. He works for her. Doesn’t he have her email address?

    3. It also looks like they gave a ‘YouTuber’ posting privileges on their blog, he trolled them with two controversial posts about the same issue on the same day (beyond the ‘expertise’ that they may have hired him for), his privileges are revoked, he uses it to gin up outrage, get views, and get a job at infowars.

  4. Would she allow the rest of us to be equally protected?

    Comparing with:

    reporter Nick Bilton notes that the Clinton campaign has jumped on an application called “Signal,” a heavily encrypted private communications program.

    I’m wondering if this is really the story here. Is the important story that she’s being inconsistent about encryption “for the rest of us” or is the more interesting takeaway that Hillary may now be communicating in a way that will never be uncovered in FOIA requests?

    1. Hillary may now be communicating in a way that will never be uncovered in FOIA requests?

      I wonder of refusal to decrypt FOIA communications would be a violation of FOIA?

      Not that it matters, of course. “No reasonable prosecutor” would indict Hillary for anything, anyway.

  5. Fat lot of good it did her.

  6. The latest Snowden tweet:

    sum sick syrian sticky icky can be found in southeast Rus lol #shiekhphattyboombalatty

  7. So I’ve got a question for the commentariat. I was arguing with a guy on Youtube about Social Security and its financing and he came out with a plan that has apparently been floated to reduce the retirement age (at which you could receive benefits) to 55, which he apparently believes will somehow increase wages for younger workers and result in more full employment. This plan, which I had never heard advanced until now, struck me as so flawed that it was actually hard to know how to address it.

    He seemed to be a believer in the labor theory of value and was more interested in calling me ignorant than having an actual discussion on the issue, so I wasn’t able to get him to elaborate and the discussion is now closed. It seems to me the consequences of such a plan would be catastrophic driven by encouraging those who are at their most economically productive to leave the workforce. I couldn’t for the life of me imagine how doing so would increase wages overall or provide the additional revenue needed to cover the increased beneficiary costs of Social Security.

    I thought it would be an interesting thought exercise to propose to the people here, who with a few exceptions appear to be well read and intelligent. Any thoughts on how to address this? What would the implementation of such a plan do to an economy? How could it possibly increase wages?

    1. Instead of debunking it, why not ask him for the numbers to prove it, especially the claim that it will increase the wages of youth sufficiently to pay for an additional ten years of retirement.
      Pretty sure this sounds like the Cat Farm Hoax.

      1. He wasn’t big on math. He’s convinced that Social Security is the greatest idea since sliced bread and that the program is making money every year.

        1. He’s trying to say that if we lure the 55 yr. olds out of the workforce then the decreased supply of labor would increase demand for the younger workers to the point that it increased wages.

          1. I don’t think it would increase wages to the point where it would offset the loss of wages paid to the 55-65 year olds.

            1. I think he’s assuming the newly-minted retirees will not only have those government checks in exchange for prime wages, but they’ll also have their retirements carefully nurtured over thirty years of a working career. Oh, and those big houses that they can sell to younger workers who now have the wages to pay for them. See, it magically fixes everything. Get on board the Happy Train, mister, we’re on our way to the Big Rock Candy Mountain!

              1. The funny thing is, most people don’t have shit saved for retirement. Practically nobody sets much aside before they are well into their forties.

                Even if you were to do this today, there’s a fair number of 55+ workers who wouldn’t retire because they are still trying to build their retirement savings.

                1. They’ve got this covered, RC. They’ll just make it the law that you have to retire at 55. So kulaks and wreckers don’t ruin it.

                  1. I’m wondering if some day, perhaps inevitable, there might be a ‘maximum age’ law. I don’t know if it will come about in my lifetime, but given life expectancy and the clear coming implosion of pensions, social security, Medicare, etc. it’s likely to be pushed as the only way to keep things going, and the collectivists will probably be all over it at some point in the future. Perhaps it will start as a strong recommendation that anyone over a certain age (85? 90?) should voluntarily undergo euthanasia for the ‘good of the country’ or ‘it’s time to step aside and let the younger generation take the reins.’ Only a matter of time until after that there is debate over why we are paying enormous sums of money just to keep alive people who can’t possibly contribute to society anymore — they’re just a drain, don’t you know. And then it would be portrayed as a noble duty, and people could spend their final moments in some ‘happy’ ceremony along the lines of Edward G. Robinson in Soylent Green.

          2. Maybe if you forced people to stop working at 55, but didn’t pay any benefits until 75. Then all those homeless starving old people would die before they collected a cent. Except for government pensioners of course. They would magically get paid right away.

        2. Contrarian P|8.29.16 @ 6:27PM|#
          “He wasn’t big on math.”

          If he’s flogging that as a solution, I don’t care if he’s big on math or not; prove it or admit you don’t know what you’re talking about (not YOU).

          1. It was kind of a sidebar to the overall discussion, so I didn’t pursue it that hard, but it was the only thing out of the entire discussion that really struck me. The proposal seemed so silly and ridiculous that it was hard to know how to approach it. It was like being charged by a bunch of midgets who are naked other than nipple tassels.

            1. Cognitive dissonance runs smack headlong into cognitive bias and has a minor psychotic episode. Imagine it looks something like this…

              “This action must be good, right and proper, because social justice. *insert flavor, optional* I know *insert economic law* to be true. So…” *thinks hard*

              ..so…

              umm…

              SO. RIGHT. SO. SO THEN, YOU SEE, ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS REDUCE THE SUPPLY OF LABOR.

              Boom. Fucking genius. Take that, internet.

              .

              Probably not, but I like that version.

              1. No, no, I like what you did there. Do you have a newsletter?

            2. If you view private employment only as a form of unevenly distributed social welfare, then his proposal makes a sort of sense.

              If you view people as productively adding value to the economy, then artificially removing one fifth of them doesn’t make sense no matter what math you use.

              1. “If you view people as productively adding value to the economy, then artificially removing one fifth of them doesn’t make sense no matter what math you use.”

                But wouldn’t you LOVE to see the sort of math-nastics the guy would have to produce to ‘prove’ the claim?

        3. He’s convinced that Social Security is the greatest idea since sliced bread and that the program is making money every year.

          IOW, he’s a dipshit, got it.

        4. the program is making money every year.

          I believe SocSec outlays exceeded SocSec tax revenue starting a few years ago, with no indication that it won’t just get worse unless the program is changed.

          1. They’ve got this covered, RC. They’ll just make it the law that you have to retire at 55. So kulaks and wreckers don’t ruin it.

            1. Shit. Wrong comment.

        5. reduce the retirement age

          When every actual plan that has ever been proposed to maintain social security’s solvency has involved *raising* it?

          He’s convinced that Social Security is the greatest idea since sliced bread and that the program is making money every year.

          So he’s never looked at the Social Security Administration’s own projections?

          Because the large shift in the cost of the OASDI program over the next 20 years is not due to increasing life expectancy, it is not clear that increasing the NRA* should be the principal approach for restoring long-term solvency. Increasing the unreduced retirement age beyond 67 is one option that may be considered, given that the population may be healthier in the future and able to work to an older average age….

          There is no one clear solution to the problem of increased cost for retirees because of fewer workers available to support the retirees, which in turn is caused by lower birth rates. This issue is not specific to Social Security, but also affects Medicare as well as many other private and public retirement income systems. ..

          *NRA = “normal retirement age”

          1. I tried bringing those up. His initial fix was raising the wage cap to bring in more FICA revenue. When I pointed out that doing that isn’t likely to fix the program except in the most optimistic models, he talked about the lowered retirement age thing.

            He mocked me for thinking Social Security increases the national debt. I’m not sure he ever quite grasped where those interest payments or the money to pay back those bonds comes from.

            1. This bullshit has been going on since before i was born.

              from “just the facts“, 2001 =

              some people completely ignore the debt owed to federal entities, but have no problem with including it in the assets of the federal programs to which the money is owed. During the 2000 presidential race, the Gore-Liebermann campaign released a 192 page economic plan that contained over 150 uses of the word “debt.” This plan does not mention or even acknowledge any of the debt owed to federal entities.[12] Yet, the plan states that the Social Security program will remain solvent until 2037.[13] Contrast this assertion with the fact that in 2015, the Social Security program is projected to start spending more money that it collects in taxes.[14] This is a 22 year discrepancy. How does Social Security stay solvent for 22 years while spending exceeds tax revenue? It collects on the money that it has loaned to the federal government; i.e. the debt owed to federal entities. If Gore and Liebermann want to dismiss the debt that the federal government owes to Social Security, to be consistent, they would also have to state that the program would become insolvent in 2015. But they don’t do this. They pretend as if the federal government doesn’t have to repay the money that it has borrowed from Social Security while simultaneously including this money in the assets of the Social Security program.

            2. “He mocked me for thinking Social Security increases the national debt. I’m not sure he ever quite grasped where those interest payments or the money to pay back those bonds comes from.”

              LOCKBOX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. He seemed to be a believer in the labor theory of value

      I’m willing to pay more than anyone else for a working version of that theory.

      1. The labor from a doctor or a turd polisher has the same value you kulak!

    3. Once of my favorite tweets about that from some economist:

      “Man this presentation I’m doing on the labor theory of value is going be awesome! I’ve spent hours on it!!”

      1. That is hilarious!

    4. I recently had a debate with a gun grabber over at Spiked. He came at me with false numbers and claims, you cant yell fire in a crowded theater so all rights have reasonable restrictions blah blah blah. The same old tired shit they always sling. Not one correct, logical or honest argument. Not one.

      I tire of those fuckers after a while. I just challenged him to either come try to take my guns or go fuck himself.

      Some days I just cant.

      1. As it is, a 12 year old can’t buy a gun at a 7-11, so we already have “reasonable restrictions.”

        1. A 5-year-old could theoretically buy Clorox bleach and drink it, thereby killing himself. Yet nobody calls for bleach control.

          1. You can’t use bleach to resist the aristocracy’s power grabs, like you can with guns. So, armed citizens are a bad idea because they might fight the very people that do these things in their best interest. Can’t have the serfs being that uppity. If they try that with bleach, armed agents of the state can gun their sorry asses down.

      2. I just challenged him to either come try to take my guns or go fuck himself.

        I would definitely pay to see one of those actions. Probably not the other, but would listen to details.

      3. What, was like a Brit or something?

        I like Spiked because I don’t always agree with them but they give me a perspective not found elsewhere (anarcho-Marxist?) but their comments are worse than The Spectator.

    5. Okay. (a) If you force everyone over the age of 55 into retirement, some segment of that group will have jobs worth doing that will go to younger people — it has to if you make it illegal or even impose tax penalties on workers 55 or over. (b) Full employment is a myth — or maybe a definitional trick. Just like the current unemployment rate is under 6% but only 120M of 190M able-bodied adults work. It doesn’t change the economy to pay different people to work or not work, unless the difference between SSR and welfare are significant. You’re just pushing a different 70M people out of the workforce. Or 35M or whatever. (c) Yes, its labor theory of value flaw, that 58 year olds are going to be pushed out of a job and 38 year olds are going to get the same jobs for the same pay. First of all, robots and computers are going to get some of those jobs, and then the 38 year olds already employed are going to get some of those jobs, without much incident pay increase, and finally, 22 year old communications majors may get 1/3rd of the money. Or half. Its like how paying $15/hr will make everyone middle class. You can’t create value from nothing, no matter how much money you throw at it. You just devalue money.

      1. “You can’t create value from nothing, no matter how much money you throw at it. You just devalue money.”

        See the Cat/Rat Farm.

    6. The theory must be that, with people leaving the workforce earlier, that will tip the supply/demand for workers to help increase wages, etc.

      Even if that’s true, the real math is how much taxes would have to go up to cover the extra SocSec costs, and how much of a pay increase across the board would be needed for a worker just to break even.

      1. Meh, Obamacare will fix that. They will, erm, provide special medical care to those in the common population that reach age 65 that will hasten their passing. Presto! System becomes solvent.

    7. Your first mistake was arguing with somebody on Youtube.

      1. Hey, I’ve argued with Cytotoxic and Hihn so clearly I’m not in my right mind.

        1. Where is that kid anyway? He hasn’t been around. Must be in summer camp.

    8. The actual plan is to increase the retirement age to keep SS solvent.

      1. You and your ‘reality’! Get outta here!

    9. It seems a reversal of criticisms I’ve seen about people not retiring: that by not retiring, they are deny career advancement to younger people. So, the district manager retires at 65, the 55 yr old assistant DM gets promoted to DM, the assistant to the assistant DM gets promoted, etc.
      Everybody gets a promotion, and now there are openings at the entry level.
      Sort of a labor version of the “broken windows fallacy”.

      1. And to elaborate: the fallacy is in believing two things:
        1. The higher salary of the worker is directly dependent on his hierarchical position instead of the skills he brings to the job, and
        2. Promoting younger people into higher positions automatically makes them capable of doing the job, and, thus, deserving of the promotion/pay raise.

        1. At least they’re consistent.

          These are the people who see middle-class families with books on the shelf and so think that giving books away will help people become middle-class, that the middle-class owns their own home – so promoting home ownership will increase the size of the middle class.

          A bunch of people who do not understand the difference between ‘correlated with’ and ‘causally linked to’.

  8. “[She] incorrectly believes he would have whistleblower protections.”

    Scott, entirely too kind. She’s lying as she does by habit.

    1. This. She just says this for rhetorical value. She does not care whether it is true.

  9. It’s abundantly clear that Hillary Clinton has less than zero qualifications on anything tech related. Not that Trump, Johnson or Stein seem to have a great handle on it either. But Clinton is that grandparent who can’t open pictures of her grandchildren on an iPad.

    Hopefully someone will come along and run for the presidency that actually understands technology in the next few election cycles. The amount of streamlining and budget cutting that could be done to the government simply through technology without actually cutting a single thing is probably an extraordinarily high number.

    1. But Clinton is that grandparent who can’t open pictures of her grandchildren on an iPad.

      Who would send Hillary pictures?

      Well, other than Anthony Weiner.

      1. Pretty sure he knows she’d rather have pics of Huma.

    2. You’re assuming that anybody in the government wants to save money. That’s not how it works in the public sector.

      Any department that actually manages to save money (Or at least come in under budget) will get their budget cut next year, and the people in charge will lose their perceived prestige and power. It’s the same reason that most ‘budget cuts’ aren’t actually cuts, just a reduction in the increased spending.

      Maybe someday some legislator will start allocating funds on zero-baseline spending in order to curb such abuses. And maybe someday I’ll have a threesome with Scarlett Johannsen and Selma Hayek on the back of a unicorn.

      1. And maybe someday I’ll have a threesome with Scarlett Johannsen and Selma Hayek on the back of a unicorn.

        Been there, done that.

  10. “Try and tease an actual policy out of this paragraph on encryption:”

    Aha!! That’s old school encryption! Vague, confusing, and contradictory!

  11. I think the point of the 55 social security age is that they think they will pay less “interest”. But with interest near zero, this seems like a bad plan.

    1. I did read something the other day about SS I thought interesting. It was about retiring at 62 instead of 67. Even though you get a higher percentage at 67 it would take the average person until 80 to make up what was lost from not getting benefits from 62 to 67. After that you would benefit until you drop dead.

  12. Not on twitter. Does it really have a “raises eyebrow” button? Could we at least get a similar button here?

    1. Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahaha
      We don’t even get an edit button. Whatever you’re smoking, I want a hit.

      1. What I’m smoking would raise both your eyebrows.

        1. Botox?

  13. OT: Man I am filled with some serious impotent rage. My home was burgled this afternoon and the theives made off with some firearms I had out waiting to be cleaned. Other than the guns they took stupid petty shit, but the worst part is the intrusiveness. The dumbass perp panicked when a neighbor came home and left their monster pry bar. Hopefully prints get lifted off it.

    1. Sorry to hear that.

    2. Man, that’s terrible. What does “had out waiting to be cleaned” mean? Sitting on a table?

      1. Sitting in hard cases in my back room near the safe. I should have safed them with the others, but we are in a low crime area and I was hoping to clean them tonight after she me shooting. Thanks Murphy’s Law, always doing your magic. These fucktards ignored a few hundred bucks in foreign currency too, but they stole a stupid checkbook.

        Ex marine neighbor of mine is advising to report the serial numbers directly to BATF. Is it possible that I’ll actually get some value from BATF? We’ll have to see.

        1. Live and learn. As for the foreign currency, they probably thought it was monopoly money. Hopefully you’re in a state not to freakish about this stuff.

          1. NH. This dumbfuck did 3 instant felonies and had an accomplice driver based on my neighbour’s account. Pretty shitty haul for the risk of 3 firearm theft felonies.

            1. Driver waiting outside? The plot thickens. Have you had any work done on your house lately?

              1. Yeah, this sounds like someone was casing you precisely for this crap… If any banks in your area get robbed be weary.

        2. While, hopefully, the cops will figure out who did this – I don’t see why giving the BATF the serial numbers will do anything worthwhile.

          Its not like a phone where the company can just brick it remotely.

          All they can do is . . . return them to you after they’ve sold them to Mexicans, and then recovered them from a crime scene?

          I suppose it could help protect you from an accusation of being a straw purchaser – but I don’t think that’s too common.

          1. I think the idea is to make sure it’s flagged as stolen, and possibly gets intercepted if they try to sell at a gun store. My new f^$# sig battle rifle has a $2800 list price and may be too tempting for an idiot to not try to sell somewhere dumb to maximise the value. They stole a 5yo laptop, kindle fires which are no longer activatable (and a liability to them), a few $100 cameras, and a few decent Seiko watches, along with a checkbook for an account that’s already been flagged. Not bright people. The 3 instant felonies are the big score for them.

            1. You also want the guns flagged as stolen if they show up at a crime scene.

              1. ^^^THIS^^^

    3. That fucking sucks. Sorry to hear that has happened to you. That feeling of violation sucks. It will fade away with time, so just ride it out. Get a gun safe.

      1. Have a safe, but didn’t put these away for the dumb reason stated above. They even tried to move the safe like retards, but it’s a monster and they failed. That’ll learn me to be complacent.

        1. “Have a safe, but didn’t put these away for the dumb reason stated above.”

          Do NOT beat yourself over the head for being nothing other than someone who presumed your home was safe from thieves. It’s painful, since you’ll end up looking for X, not finding it and wondering if he thugs got it.
          But do NOT give in to the guilt; you live there and you deserve security in your home. It’s unfortunate that some scum bags got in, but don’t let it make you paranoid. It’s YOUR house.

          1. Pretty sure that 360 degree security cameras dumping video out to the cloud and local will make me feel significantly better. They tried to prybar our main door, and failed due to the deadbolt. Popped open a side door with little effort. Gonna probably get deadbolts for all doors in response. Makes me fucking pissed though. My wife proposed getting flowers for the neighbour wife that provided a description for the accomplice’s car and appearance.

            1. I’d sure reward a neighbor who helped grab the scum bags, and if you think additional (tech) security will help, have at it.
              But do NOT let this build any guilt you might be feeling.
              I repeat, it is your home. Those who broke in are due whatever penalty you can push upon them. You are due nothing more than the painful experience you’ve already suffered; don’t let the scum bags make you feel worse.
              Have a drink, watch a flick, read a book, DO NOT let those assholes get to you.

              1. Well the perps aren’t pinched yet and therefore still at large, but yeah, I agree with what you are saying. Appreciate the sentiment.

            2. Cameras help.

              I have cameras everywhere. Some hidden, some not. If a car drives down my street, I’ll have a record of it.

              I don’t lock anything (other than the gun safe). If someone steals from me, they’re going to pay.

              1. I figure that cameras are a large deterrent, along with the badge of Brinks/ADT, etc. Thanks for the tip.

                1. Put this sign on your front door/lawn:

                  http://owned.com/media/_cache/…..77.jpg.png

                  1. I decided to make a $5k reward/bounty very public for info relating to the apprehension of tbe perp and return of our assets. My neighbour is chomping at the bit to post a notice on a town Facebook page where all the locals congregate for their gossip.

                    1. A reward and local publicity might work. a very large percentage of burglaries are local kids. There’s a good chance that somebody local knows or suspects something.

                2. Cameras are a deterrent. It’s kind of disappointing in a way.

                  If someone is going to steal from me when they think they aren’t being watched, I want them to try.

                  1. A neighbor just a few houses away had a burglar the other night try to come into his house via a window. The neighbor had a video camera trained on the window and got excellent full video with clear photos of the guy’s face. And the genius robber even aided the situation by leaving a full handprint on the window, which you can even see on the glass in the video.

                    Fortunately for our neighbor, the invader got spooked for some reason, and suddenly ran off as he was about to enter the house. But amazingly enough, arriving police said that ‘since the guy didn’t enter the house, he didn’t break the law’, and they had no interest in the video or the fingerprints — and left. And this was not some overburdened city’s police department, but a small force in an affluent residential suburb, the kind where they publish the ‘police blotter’ in the local paper and it’s mostly about mailbox baseball vignettes.

                    Sure am glad that Jerry Brown let 35,000 ‘nonviolent’ felons out of the state prisons due to ‘overcrowding’. I’m sure all those guys have found good honest work since then. Home burglaries in our area have gone way up in the past year or so.

                    1. As a teenager, it was always an honor to make the crime blotter.

                    2. Huh. I can’t picture you ever doing anything illegal, immoral or fattening.

                    3. Anacreon, I remember back in HS, a bunch of the football players made the crime blotter for stealing yard signs. During football season in some parts of the country, parents like to put out signs in their yard saying that their kid is on the football team , #42 or #69, and the cheerleader’s parents put out out similar signs.

                      To the actual players this was considered a really dorky thing to do, akin to having your parents putting one of those ‘My child is an honor roll student at ….’

                      So one Saturday night a bunch of the football players decided they would be doing everyone a favor by stealing those yard signs, starting with the ones on their own front lawns, then pick up the cheerleader signs.

                      So one of the cheerleaders was black and her parents thought there was some sort of hate crime thing going on. I guess because they stole they stole the yard sign from the sole black cheerleader and called in the cops. After a bit of questioning the cops busted the guy with about 30 yard signs in the back of his pickup, and the whole criminal conspiracy fell like a house of cards.

                    4. The fingerprints are probably a lost cause: gone by now, and in any case it would probably be impossible to get the authorities to run them. But I’d be tempted to enlarge one or more images from the tape, enlarge them, and post them somewhere like imgur.com with a caption that includes the date and approximate location. Somebody might recognize him.

      2. Do you speak from experience with regard to getting robbed?

    4. You think the cops are actually going to investigate?

      (Sorry for your loss.)

  14. So DeBlasio puts up free curbside WiFi kiosks and recharging stations, to “bridge the digital divide.” You’ll never guess what happens next.

    1. I figured it was going to be porn found on government-sector servers.

  15. “Hillary Clinton’s Staff Turned to Snowden’s Wisdom for Cybersecurity Advice”

    In a better world, Hillary Clinton would ask Snowden for advice on how to flee the U.S. for fear of criminal prosecution.

  16. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.BuzzWage6.com

  17. Do you guys think Soren Kierkegaard qualifies as a libertarian? He seems like it to me but i never read any of his stuff. I could be wrong.

  18. My neighbor just got a stunning cream Cadillac CTS Sedan just by parttime work from a home pc… Read More Here and Go to Home Tab…. >>> http://www.jobsea3.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.