Does that imply that Snowden has some intention of returning to the US and facing trial? Everything I've read from him indicates he doesn't plan on it. If so, what's the purpose of donating to fund his legal defense?
I don't really understand supporting Chelsea Manning, or equating her plight with Snowden's.
Snowden had a purpose and a plan, and executed it while attempting to keep people from getting hurt. Chelsea Manning lashed out at an army that didn't support her and put her in the wrong position. The military may have mistreated her, but they're still not the same thing.
Why would you put army in quotes? It's really an army, so that doesn't make sense.
Chelsea Manning was a confused person when she released the documents. She felt isolated from the people around her and searched for inclusion elsewhere. She developed a friendly relationship with Wikileaks personnel, and sent them hundreds of thousands of random documents. Later, she sent the helicopter video and hundreds of thousands more random documents.
That's not a principled stand against what the military is doing. That's a person unhappy with where they are lashing out and in the process occasionally hitting the mark.
The military subsequently mistreated her, and she should never have been in the position to do this in the first place. She ended up telling people that she was the one who leaked all the documents, when she didn't have to say anything at all. That doesn't make her a crusader or hero.
Snowden, on the other hand, was valued and paid well, and sacrificed that. He specifically targeted information that he believed was unconscionable and unconstitutional, and was careful about who he trusted with it and what he released. He had a well-articulated and thought-through purpose and has effected change through it.
'army' to highlight the the massive problems really wasn't all the army's doing. Elected politicians, unelected public servants, media informing the public spectacularly badly and so on really can't be laid at the door of the armed forces. Whatever the armed forces did wrong they should have to answer for individually and in terms of institutional reform (as we all should in all our walks of life) but not those wrongs they really had no power to put right.
Can we please keep repeating that Manning was inspired to do what he believed to be the right thing by Elie Wiesel and specifically referenced this video:
http://vimeo.com/5081720
in his irc discussions with Adrian Lamo that got him arrested and jailed. Manning was looking at people being rounded up for their scholarly political views. That's a fact, not conjecture. It has a wow factor. If you aren't willing to accept being a part of that as he wasn't and believe that the institution you love is in dire need of serious reform, what can you do? What will you do?
Criticizing Manning or Snowden or Greenwald or Poitras or Drake or for that matter Assange but spending no energy at all on the required institutional reforms or being critical of the evil that does kill unjustly and unnecessarily doesn't seem like a particularly courageous answer. Reform is hard, PR much easier if you're in power and can get away with that. I don't think they can or will because now the dust settles people can be a bit more confident who had done the wrong thing.
"We tortured some folk..." Gotta start somewhere.
It's not about doing it in an orderly way, it's about doing it on purpose.
If I'm upset and download a bunch of documents onto a flash drive and send it to a person that is nice to me, and it just so happens that in amongst the hundreds of thousands of miscellaneous documents is some scrap of evidence of wrongdoing, it doesn't make me a hero for doing it.
If on the other hand I find that evidence and expose it purposefully because I have principles, that's another story.
Intent has meaning when you're defending a person's actions.
Oh god, I assumed Chelsea was a separate leaker from Bradley Manning, and instantly thought "Well, she was probably acting rash" - whereas my opinion of "Bradley Manning" differed.
Well, at least realizing your bias puts you ahead of the other 99% of people who think they aren't biased, and you can try to keep it in mind and reexamine decisions. That's what I try to do, as much as I'm capable, at least.
I had to look up Chelsea Manning. I was aware from the news that Bradley Manning had issues with gender, but wasn't aware he had changed his gender association. What's considered the current best way to describe this, that Bradley Manning released the documents (past tense) and now Chelsea Manning needs support (present tense), or that Chelsea Manning released documents and now needs support? The first way feels like it's more useful for expressing the situation to those that lived through it, but may be ignoring the identity of the person in question. Referring to the person through the later moniker in all instances may be confusing to those that miss the change as it happens, but may be less confusing to future generations.
I guess this isn't new though, we have Cassius Clay / Muhammad Ali.
In particular, you should refer to Chelsea as she would want -- with her current name and her expressed gender pronoun preference (e.g., use 'her' where you use 'his' above). Also, "gender association" is not a common formulation.
In terms of capturing the nuance of acts prior to public transitioning, the above link has some suggestions:
Avoid pronoun confusion when examining the stories and backgrounds of transgender people prior to their transition.
Ideally a story will not use pronouns associated with a person's birth sex when referring to the person's life prior to transition. Try to write transgender people's stories from the present day, instead of narrating them from some point in the past, thus avoiding confusion and potentially disrespectful use of incorrect pronouns.
Is this a largely solved problem around the issue, or a solved problem in and around the community? I ask because I'm torn between wanting to respect the individual, but also as a computer scientist feeling somewhat offended that someone's later choice of how they want to refer to themselves caused altered accounts of historical information, which to my eyes is more confusing (and possibly less accurate, if that confusion isn't addressed promptly and often).
I'm not really sure how to square that with myself, but I think I lean towards preserving the data integrity of the public record. If someone referred to themselves in a specific way and identified themselves a specific way in the past, I think that's how they should be referred to when discussing that point in time.
> Is this a largely solved problem around the issue, or a solved problem in and around the community?
That a community has solved a problem is no different than the problem being solved (unless of course you don't believe in the validity of trans people). Chelsea Manning has clearly stated that she is a woman and should be referred to as a woman.
> I ask because I'm torn between wanting to respect the individual, but also as a computer scientist feeling somewhat offended that someone's later choice of how they want to refer to themselves caused altered accounts of historical information, which to my eyes is more confusing (and possibly less accurate, if that confusion isn't addressed promptly and often).
If you say you are feeling torn, then you are not wanting to respect this person at all, so you really aren't feeling torn. Bottom line, Chelsea Manning is a woman and should be referred to as such. You say you are offended, but what you are really saying is that you feel that you know her gender better than she does. You don't. Your discomfort with trans folks is your own issue and to misgender someone is hugely disrespectful.
> I'm not really sure how to square that with myself, but I think I lean towards preserving the data integrity of the public record. If someone referred to themselves in a specific way and identified themselves a specific way in the past, I think that's how they should be referred to when discussing that point in time.
There is a difference between talking about past events and continuing to insist on misgendering someone in the present.
You are projecting. Please re-read my original post, and followup. To assume I'm biased without at least asking some questions first to clarify my intent is disingenuous, unfair, and unappreciated.
> That a community has solved a problem is no different than the problem being solved (unless of course you don't believe in the validity of trans people).
I don't believe this is true. If a community solves a problem of how the public at large should act, but the public does not accept or follow that solution, the problem is not solved. I was simply asking what type of adoption the solution I was presented had seen. If it's seeing widespread adoption, then this discussion has little meaning (beyond discussing technical merits of different approaches), because I don't think anything would change. I'm fine with that, besides thinking that history gets a bit more confusing.
> If you say you are feeling torn, then you are not wanting to respect this person at
No, I'm trying to weigh my respect for the individual and their desires against societies desires and needs, as well as what we may perceive as best for society (even if it's not something they value at the time).
> Chelsea Manning is a woman and should be referred to as such.
That's fine, I never stated she shouldn't be. I'm simply torn on what I think should be the best way to refer to her in the past tense, for the same reason I refer to my sic year old self as a boy, and not as a man. I'm a man now, I was a boy then. I am open to arguments to sway me though. I'm not pushing an agenda, just trying to discuss something that I encountered.
> Your discomfort with trans folks
This is the projection I was referring to. I thought I was pretty clear that I was uncomfortable with the historical record changing on someone's future decision. That this decision is common to transgender people is irrelevant to be points. If you want to argue that gender and name are important enough to warrant the changes, that's fine. If you can't make the argument without referring to transgender people, that may be a sign the argument needs refinement, or may have some baked in assumptions that don't hold. For example, I personally hold name and gender to be of equal importance. Maybe that's not the case for you, or any number of others. That may be a bad assumption on either of our parts.
> There is a difference between talking about past events and continuing to insist on misgendering someone in the present.
And where was I saying we should misgender them in the present? I don't think it's misgendering someone to refer to them as "he" when referring to them at some point when they referred to themselves with that pronoun, and as "she" in the present when that's how they refer to themselves. But maybe my thoughts in that are tied to some assumptions that need to be shaken. Like I said, I'm open to discussion, but please keep the attacks to yourself, at least until you've given me the benefit of a doubt.
A lot to respond to, so I'll just make it brief. How to handle someone who has transition is well covered on the internet. Also very common on the internet is bad faith arguments that fret over whether they should or should not accept certain aspects of someone's transition. Simply put, just accept that transition and use basic phrases if you must refer to something about that person's past presentation. However, don't always bring it up or bring it up without need as you are basically performing a subtle misgendering of the person by always throwing that past presentation in the face of their current presentation, which is something that happens a lot for trans folks.
I'm not trying to reject anyone's transition, I'm trying to figure out when, where and why it was decided that the past description in this case gets rewritten for the current context instead of continuing to to exist in an accurate form.
For example, we don't refer to a block of marble as a statue until it has become one. When referring to its past, we don't generally refer to it as a statue until it has become one. I was a boy before I was a man, when referring to that period of my life, expect anyone to refer to me as a boy (or child), and not my current state.
To be absolutely clear, I have no problem referring to someone as they desire in the present or future, but I've yet to see a good reason (beyond "it's disrespectful!", with little or no explanation) why a change in name or gender requires a rewriting of history. I would be happy to have an argument put forth I could get behind, it would hopefully make this less confusing in the future, and cause less friction if I misstep.
While a single entity can have multiple identifiers, one is usually canonical in a communication environment. For example, we say "Istanbul was founded in the 7th century BC" when speaking of the present-day city, But we say "Byzantium was founded" when we wish to limit the discussion to the pre-Constantine era. If we wish to span multiple eras, Istanbul is the only choice, as that is the canonical identifier.
As such, I believe you should refer to Manning as Chelsea if she is the subject, but may refer to her as Bradley if the leak is the subject. It would be helpful to qualify her name as "Chelsea Manning, who was at the time known as Bradley", "Bradley Manning, who later changed her name to Chelsea", or some similar construction for audiences who are not well aware of her, to help them connect historical knowledge to your topic.
This is perfectly sensible, and exactly what I was looking for. It chooses the most relevant and least confusing identifier for the context it was used in. The question then becomes, "Is this acceptable to the transgender community?" and "Is this in common use?"
"née" isn't a pronoun; it's used to identify someone's birth name as distinct from her current name, as in "Hillary Clinton, née Rodham". A French-to-English dictionary says it literally means "born". (And when conjugated with a male noun, in French it would be "né".)
Think of it as a database. A table of events with foreign key references to a table of people. Now if someone's name changes, you only need to update a single entry, eliminating both redundancy and inconsistency in our database. If I look up events about Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter, I sure hope that I find things like when she was born! If you insist on tying events to name at the time of the event, you have a much greater propensity for losing information whenever anyone changes their name for any reason! Therefore, from a data integrity standpoint, I think every database engineer would prefer the one name for all history approach. You could even store the name change event itself!
That's one possible schema, which assumes the name is the primary key. Now that we've established that the name can change, I think it makes a bad choice for a primary key. Instead, I would think you look up a name, and get a link to the primary record, allowing multiple names in use (whether active currently or not). I personally think any schema that requires going back and changing primary keys on a record (and thus anything that links to that record by it's key) because of an action that record takes if poorly designed, and likely to have errors, which I think sums up my thoughts on this nicely.
I never said anything about using names as a primary key. Of course, you could expand the schema to handle aliases, but in the end, people have names that they prefer. You are kbenson, and if you were able to change your username, the proper action is to change the username on all of your comments.
Wikipedia uses something similar to what I described under the covers. There's a unique id assigned to a page, but it's ALSO accessible by a title. Internally, the page id is used to refer the page from other items, not the title[1]. This is sort of equivalent to having one or more names associated with your SSN, if you are in the US. Which makes sense, because names are not unique.
You are confused because you are seeing gender how it is currently used, which is a social construct that is assigned to people largely beyond their control that affects how others see and interact with them; and what some people want gender to be: solely an expression of one's personal gender identification, that to be respectful everyone else must acknowledge.
I'm actually not even going into how people want to identify, which I see as largely their own choice. I'm more interested in why we are supposed to change the past tense pronoun and name. Really, my question is the same when the pronoun argument is excised from it. Consider Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali. Do we say Cassius Clay won the world heavyweight title in 1964, or do we say Muhammad Ali did, knowing he changes his name afterward. There are cases where it is more confusing both ways, but from a historical record perspective, it feels more correct to me to say Cassius Clay did, simply because that also denotes who he identified as at that point in time.
The key way to think of this is that the pronoun is an honorific which always signifies the current state of the individual, and it is not a historical fact. If facts related to the individual's gender at an earlier time are germane, such facts should be explicitly stated rather than overloading the pronoun, which (remember) is simply an honorific which the user has selected.
The question of gender earlier in one's life in most stories is not even relevant and there is really no need to discuss it at all. However, in Manning's case the question of gender does appear to be somewhat relevant, since her motive appears to have included concerns about how the Army treated (or failed to treat) her own gender disorder.
> The question of gender earlier in one's life in most stories is not even relevant and there is really no need to discuss it at all.
Except that gender neutral singular pronouns are not used much in English where they exist (there is a singular they, but it's uncommon it's used). But I think focusing on this is missing the point. Note my reference to Cassius Clay. I'm more interested in that an identifier changes. That the gender specific also changed is just an additional complication, but once the rules on the name are clear, the rules on the pronoun would be obvious, I think.
> I was aware from the news that Bradley Manning had issues with gender, but wasn't aware he had changed his gender association.
There is a lot to unpack in this statement. First, you should absolutely edit this to change the name and gender pronouns, you are clearly misgendering this person. Secondly, being trans isn't about gender association, it is expressing and living as your gender, period. 'Gender association' implies that there is some true gender rather than what Chelsea Manning has stated and that is very transphobic whether you realize it or not.
> What's considered the current best way to describe this, that Bradley Manning released the documents (past tense) and now Chelsea Manning needs support (present tense), or that Chelsea Manning released documents and now needs support?
The latter. Chelsea Manning released these documents and now needs support. If you are speaking to specific historical information, sometimes you may need to refer to the previous name. However, it is rare to need to phrase something this way and usually such phrasings serve to portray being trans in a negative light.
> The first way feels like it's more useful for expressing the situation to those that lived through it, but may be ignoring the identity of the person in question. Referring to the person through the later moniker in all instances may be confusing to those that miss the change as it happens, but may be less confusing to future generations.
It is not confusing whatsoever. People change names and aliases all the time for a variety of reasons but the world doesn't end and future generations aren't confused as to who someone is. Moreover, misgendering someone isn't just ignoring their identity, it is a slap in the face and challenges the validity of their existence.
> There is a lot to unpack in this statement. First, you should absolutely edit this to change the name and gender pronouns, you are clearly misgendering this person
I feel that's white-washing the record, when I think my intent was clear and honest. I was asking for how to deal with this, not stating a preference. Instead I'll apologize here with a clarification of intent (as I've done elsewhere). If I had known the correct way to refer to Chelsea Manning in the past tense, I would have done so. Since I didn't, I used the method I thought made the most sense, with explanation.
> However, it is rare to need to phrase something this way and usually such phrasings serve to portray being trans in a negative light.
How does it portray them in a negative light? Is Muhammad Ali portrayed in a negative light when he's referred to as Cassius Clay in the past? In what ways is that different? Is it different just because of the current state of social acceptance of transgender people? Does that imply that at some point in the future it won't be different? Does that strengthen the scheme of the status quo, or is it an argument towards a more normalized usage in past tense?
> It is not confusing whatsoever. People change names and aliases all the time for a variety of reasons but the world doesn't end and future generations aren't confused as to who someone is.
Well, obviously people are confused, because I just was when I first read the headline of this article, meaning there's at least one person in the world that's been confused by this. Do we need to argue this, or can we move on to something more useful, like trying to figure how many people are confused, how often, how likely they are to fix the confusion, if it's more or less confusing than other schemes, and other pros and cons?
> Moreover, misgendering someone isn't just ignoring their identity, it is a slap in the face and challenges the validity of their existence.
The issue here is, I think, that you label referring to someone in the past tense as they were in the past tense as misgendering, while I'm not sure I accept that. I think people can be expected to and have a right to control their current state, I'm not so sure I would extend that to them being able to change their past state.
> I feel that's white-washing the record, when I think my intent was clear and honest. I was asking for how to deal with this, not stating a preference. Instead I'll apologize here with a clarification of intent (as I've done elsewhere). If I had known the correct way to refer to Chelsea Manning in the past tense, I would have done so. Since I didn't, I used the method I thought made the most sense, with explanation.
It's not a blame thing or a "tut tut shame on you". The fact is it is a misgendering and that is harmful to people even if unintended. You don't need to apologize to me, but I think you should do the right thing and edit your original post and change the pronouns.
> How does it portray them in a negative light? Is Muhammad Ali portrayed in a negative light when he's referred to as Cassius Clay in the past? In what ways is that different? Is it different just because of the current state of social acceptance of transgender people? Does that imply that at some point in the future it won't be different? Does that strengthen the scheme of the status quo, or is it an argument towards a more normalized usage in past tense?
This has to do with how trans people are reported on and represented in media. Often media will explicitly draw attention to someone being trans while at the same time misgendering or attempting to paint the person as being abnormal or unbalanced. More subtly, often times media and comments will always draw attention to a person's gender before transitioning and it makes it difficult for someone to live as their current, actual identity and gender.
> Well, obviously people are confused, because I just was when I first read the headline of this article, meaning there's at least one person in the world that's been confused by this. Do we need to argue this, or can we move on to something more useful, like trying to figure how many people are confused, how often, how likely they are to fix the confusion, if it's more or less confusing than other schemes, and other pros and cons?
I'm just pointing out that people change names and aliases all the time and we manage to do just fine. There isn't a problem with continuing to use the name Chelsea Manning and the proper gender pronouns.
> The issue here is, I think, that you label referring to someone in the past tense as they were in the past tense as misgendering, while I'm not sure I accept that. I think people can be expected to and have a right to control their current state, I'm not so sure I would extend that to them being able to change their past state.
It's not about the past state. It's that their present state is always reduced back to that previous state. A trans person doesn't take to take their gender for granted and being misgendered is common. That misgender often goes beyond and uncomfortable social situation, that misgendering can challenge your medical access, identification documents, your sexual orientation, and lead to direct violence against your person.
The point I'm making is that there is not need to fret or worry about "historical accuracy" or anything of the sort. Just use the name and pronouns this person explicitly announced to the world as what to use.
> The point I'm making is that there is not need to fret or worry about "historical accuracy" or anything of the sort. Just use the name and pronouns this person explicitly announced to the world as what to use.
I can't help but feel you keep misconstruing my argument to be that people should not be able to change their name or gender, or that we should ignore their name and gender preference, which I've very explicitly made clear is not my case. I do, and will continue to "just use the name and pronouns this person explicitly announced to the world as what to use" for the present and future tense. It's only the past tense I have questions about, and am seeking a valid argument for.
I'm unclear why there is a special case where people who decide to change their name (or gender, but that's irrelevant to my argument) have special rules about how their past is represented that nothing else follows, as far as I'm aware.
> It's not about the past state. It's that their present state is always reduced back to that previous state.
It's a fucking name. If a person can't live with the fact that they used to be called something else, they need serious help with their self-image. It's not on other people to let you pretend you were never in jail, it's not on them to let you pretend you weren't raised in Cornwall, and it's not on them to let you pretend you were always married to the same person. It's on them not to bring it up when it's not pertinent, which it sometimes is, particularly in medical, judicial, sexual and demographic contexts.
> 'Gender association' implies that there is some true gender rather than what Chelsea Manning has stated and that is very transphobic whether you realize it or not.
I haven't downvoted you but let me explain why others have. You're making politically controversial statements and essentially accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot.
This place is full of engineers. There are only two ways you can say there is no true gender. The first is to take the anti-science position that males and females have the same chromosomes with all that entails and the second is to redefine "gender" to mean something outside of what most people understand it to mean.
It's completely understandable that members of a community where making subtle distinctions are important would want to redefine relevant words to make their meaning more clear to one another. But becoming indignant when other people won't adopt your Newspeak is just contributing to the political inflammation of the situation.
> I haven't downvoted you but let me explain why others have. You're making politically controversial statements and essentially accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot.
I am not accusing anyone of being a bigot. However, it would be silly to assume that there are not cultural and social biases about gender that you and I grow up with and have, even if we don't realize it. That is what I am getting at: this isn't some accusation, but that statement definitely has a connotation about what it means to be a particular gender.
> This place is full of engineers. There are only two ways you can say there is no true gender. The first is to take the anti-science position that males and females have the same chromosomes with all that entails and the second is to redefine "gender" to mean something outside of what most people understand it to mean.
Gender is not your genes and there is a difference between sex and gender. The view that sex and gender have difference is not an unusual understanding of what gender means. Moreover, there is a lot of assumptions and stereotypes in culture and society about gender. Even if those assumptions are common, that does not mean they are valid or that they are not harmful.
> It's completely understandable that members of a community where making subtle distinctions are important would want to redefine relevant words to make their meaning more clear to one another.
You are implying that trans people being able to define their identity and having their identity accepted is a niche thing that isn't relevant to society as a whole when it most certainly is. Being able to have an identity and exist without facing violence and hardship is important no matter how numerically small a population is.
> But becoming indignant when other people won't adopt your Newspeak is just contributing to the political inflammation of the situation.
I think you missed the point of what Newspeak is. Correcting false assumptions and stereotypes about gender is not about limiting discussion or dialog. Further, there is no way that trans communities are even close to being in a position of political power and influence, being able to have their identity without that identity being challenged just because they exist isn't an attempt to suppress people.
> I am not accusing anyone of being a bigot. However, it would be silly to assume that there are not cultural and social biases about gender that you and I grow up with and have, even if we don't realize it. That is what I am getting at: this isn't some accusation, but that statement definitely has a connotation about what it means to be a particular gender.
The words you're using could be applied to anything. We're culturally biased to believe that murder, rape and slavery are wrong, that free speech and self-determination are virtuous, etc. So your point has to be that the bias is not only present but incorrect. The problem is that's the political question which is in dispute. People aren't inherently wrong just because they disagree with you.
> Gender is not your genes and there is a difference between sex and gender.
This is what I'm talking about. "Gender" and "genes" have the same root. Several of the definitions of "gender" in the dictionary list it as a synonym for sex. You're trying to claim that sex and gender mean (materially) different things because that allows you to more easily distinguish one from the other. So you're essentially using gender as a term of art. Which is fine until you start trying to tell everyone else that your meaning is the only meaning.
> You are implying that trans people being able to define their identity and having their identity accepted is a niche thing that isn't relevant to society as a whole when it most certainly is. Being able to have an identity and exist without facing violence and hardship is important no matter how numerically small a population is.
The problem is the cultural bias goes both ways. Most of society will assume that someone referred to with the feminine pronoun is genetically female. When that assumption is false the use of that pronoun becomes inherently misleading. So you're implicitly claiming that someone should have the right to mislead others about their sex in order to self-identify as the opposite gender. Can you at least understand how not everyone would agree with that conclusion?
And there is a mile wide gap between disagreeing over which words to use to describe someone and committing violence against them.
> I think you missed the point of what Newspeak is. Correcting false assumptions and stereotypes about gender is not about limiting discussion or dialog. Further, there is no way that trans communities are even close to being in a position of political power and influence, being able to have their identity without that identity being challenged just because they exist isn't an attempt to suppress people.
A majority or position of power is not necessary to enforce conformity to an ideal. All it requires is dedication and repetition. More to the point, if you don't think it can be effective then why are you doing it?
I think the generally correct way to do it is to send all previous documents to the memory hole for correction, so we will know that the woman Chelsea Manning released information regarding our war with Eastasia.
Edit: spoken tongue-in-cheek of course, but I've run into this before where names were updated some places but not others... for a while I thought the Synthesis OS kernel must have been written by a pair of people because I kept seeing references to Henry and Alexia based on which paper I was reading
CCC has loose ties to the Wau Holland Foundation(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wau_Holland_Foundation), which collected considerable sums for Wikileaks and often collaborates with the CCC. I think they've already given enough reasons to be on the shitlist.
(Wau Holland co-founded the CCC)
edit: made it clear that by "collaborate with", I mean the CC and not Wikileaks.
The organisation you are looking for is Amnesty International. The Chaos Computer Club's focus should be obvious from their name. I don't recall Pussy Riot or Falung Gong revealing government secrets and blowing the whistle on unalawful behaviour generally involving computers.
Many people who are critical of aspects of US policy and institutional behaviour grew up looking at the US as a shining light of freedom and justice in opposition to the evil that was the USSR. Not everything is an anti-us conspiracy, perhaps the required eternal vigilance hasn't been quite vigilant enough and now we know? Perhaps it is starting to be properly vigilant again and the USA's greatness will re-assert itself just as some patriotic American heroes did previously against the likes of McCarthy?
Anyway here is the wikipedia page for the CCC with whom I happen to have absolutely zero association.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Computer_Club
Give it a cursory glance and decide for yourself if this group is focused on being "anti-american"
> Donations
> We gladly accept any donation, even considerable sums.
Bank account of the CCC e. V.:
Chaos Computer Club e. V.
IBAN DE41 2001 0020 0599 0902 01
BIC PBNKDEFF
[1] http://www.ccc.de/en/membership