46 points in fifteen minutes and not a single comment? This NSA issue is seeming less and less like a discussion topic and more like a echo chamber, despite the rampant lack of information on all sides of the event.
... and those who use the comments to proxy article quality before reading.
Five. There are five crowds of people on reddit/HN. The commenters, the voters, the readers, the waiters, and the lazy. And also the submitters. Six. There six crowds of people on reddit/HN! And... ;-)
This whole story has had a baffling effect on HN. For the last few days 4/5ths of everything on the frontpage has been related to the NSA. I'm not saying that its not an important issue, but Christ do we need to have every bloggers opinion upvoted to the top? Even Apple was only able to make the top of front page for a short time. This is HN and Apple's latest news is not the top story. It's like I'm on a completely different site.
Devil's Advocate: are we really upset that an unfolding scandal involving the right to privacy is displacing content about a shiny new product launch?
It's kind of interesting to witness the interaction between HN's overlapping circles of technologists, civil libertarians, and entrepreneurs.
To be fair, I agree that we need to avoid letting this discussion devolve into a frenzied mob of speculation. Misinformation can almost be worse than ignorance.
I'm not saying its terrible that HN is in an uproar over this, its just that I haven't seen HN this dominated by one topic since Steve Jobs died. There does seem to be a major lack of information on the issue though and unfortunately this topic always brings out some of the more "eccentric" members of the tech industry. I'm sick of seeing hyperbole comments like "we need a revolution", "we are in a police state", "America is done for time to move", etc. If all of our worst fears turn out to be true then it should be a call to action not a call to abandon ship.
You're not wrong that it doesn't feel the same his week, but is that a bad thing? Seems to me that even from a technology business perspective this is vastly more important than any iOS revelation could possibly be as fun as it might be to read about. I find the constant NSA discussion depressing and exhausting but not baffling. Its very relevant to hn IMO.
What astounds me is that the mainstream media is not similarly in uproar. People don't seem to understand what this means: the government is spying on us, it is lying about the spying, and now it is telling us to not worry about it, to just move along, AND WE'RE DOING IT.
This is the most alarming thing I've seen in my adult life.
Considering how codified lying to the public is in American law, I have to start wondering how codified lying to the President is in Intelligence Community practices.
This is the second most alarming thing, on a national discourse level, that I have seen in my adult life. The first being the lies and media complicity readily swallowed by the u.s. public preceding and during the invasion of Iraq.
The government isn't really spying on us en masse, any more than terrorists are out to get us en masse. for one thing, people are more concerned with external threats than internal ones (and I think that's reasonably rational, because the US is really a very long way from anything resembling totalitarianism); for another, most people assume taht the government already has/had access to what you do on your cellphone/facebook/internet searches so actual evidence of data manaing doesn't seem all that big of a revelation. Most Americans are already used to having everything they do entered into a database already; consider that the course of most people's lives are already shaped by their credit scores without any particular help from the government. At least you can FOIA the government to see what information they have on you. Good luck getting any private firm like Google to give you that information; we had to pass a law to ensure people have access to their own credit report, and that only entitles one free request annually.
>The government isn't really spying on us en masse
Actually they are.
>most people assume taht the government already has/had access to what you do on your cellphone/facebook/internet searches
I think that most people assume that email is just like mail: private, and protected by the 4th amendment. I think most people assume that their phone records are similarly protected. And I doubt that most people, possibly including people in Congress, know what is possible to infer from the data they are collecting.
I don't count trawling data as described so far to be spying, any more than I consider my back yard getting photographed by spy satellites to mean they're spying on my place of residence.
I think that most people assume that email is just like mail: private, and protected by the 4th amendment. I think most people assume that their phone records are similarly protected.
The law has said otherwise for >30 years, and I think most people who think about it are aware that their email and phone records are stored by 3rd parties. Do you have evidence for your view, or are you just projecting what you think should be the case onto everyone else?
> are you just projecting what you think should be the case onto everyone else?
Projecting, mainly. Just like you. Pew did a phone survey that shows 56% of people believe it's okay to give up privacy to defeat terrorism. But even that doesn't really go to what people believe about their privacy right now.
No, I think we should have more robust privacy protections and that this would require a constitutional amendment, but I'm also aware that my view has little traction at present. I'm sanguine about monitoring of things like CDRs because it seems an inevitable result of technology, and it's unrealistic to expect the government to put itself at a legal disadvantage compared to individuals and businesses. On the other hand, this fact of modern technological life is why I choose not to put my life on services like Facebook, despite the significant social disadvantages that entails.
> people are more concerned with external threats than internal ones
> most people assume taht the government already has/had access to what you do on your cellphone/facebook/internet searches so actual evidence of data manaing doesn't seem all that big of a revelation.
When the matter is considered a good punchline on late night chat shows, I think there's some evidence for my view of what people in general think. I spent over a decade working in customer-facing IT so I'm summarizing my experience of the attitudes I encountered. I'm not sure what axe you're trying to grind here.
For one thing, it's the only interesting thing that has happened in American politics since... Watergate, maybe?
Second, if the resolution doesn't go far enough to restore confidence in US cloud and telecom technology companies, it could have a large effect on the tech economy.
Third, the only practical solution may to adopt real security measures: End-to-end strong encryption. Encrypted storage. Audited open source systems.
"46 points in fifteen minutes and not a single comment?"
Keep in mind also that when someone submit the same URL as already submitted it increases the count. So someone reading that article and not checking that it's already been posted counts toward that 46. I'm only mentioning because I've done this and I've had stories upvoted to, say, 10 that never were commented on.
I read the first page of the lawsuit, determined it looked liked a valid filing and when I Googled Larry Elliot I learned that he is known as the founder and the former chairman of Judicial Watch, a public interest and non-profit law firm, Klayman was a prosecutor in the United States Justice Department and was on the trial team that succeeded in breaking up the telephone monopoly of AT&T - Hence this post was 24kt gold.
HN stores comments permanently and offers no way in which to delete them. Given the current trends it's overwhelmingly likely that someone will eventually be detained, harassed or put on a no-fly list due to past comments on HN.
Given the subject matter, doesn't it seem reasonable that a lot of people would see more risk than benefit in commenting? If your primary goal in life is activism, then sure. But most of us have other primary goals.
> Given the current trends it's overwhelmingly likely that someone will eventually be detained, harassed or put on a no-fly list due to past comments on HN.
why he choose the time Obama meeting with Xi, you know they will talk about network hacking issue?
why he select Hongkong for asylum ?
He was not such simple, he mean it.
Is it just me, or does it seem like this guy probably isn't holed up in Hong Kong but elsewhere? I really hope this guy is smart enough to not actually advertise where in the world he actually is to a bunch of people that would likely have no problems disappearing him. I really hope he's already in Iceland.
Hong Kong is not controlled by the USAUK intelligence corpus so they would probably respect diplomatic privilege and allow him to leave for Iceland as long as he does so under diplomatic protection.
It is probably also the case the UK wouldn't arrest Assange if he left under diplomatic protection, despite their claims that they would, since it would be a gross violation of diplomatic protocol. Remember that a Libyan opened fire on a crowd of Londoners from balcony of the Libyan embassy with a sub-machine gun, killing a young police woman and the UK still allowed the shooter to leave the country without charges. Diplomatic protocol is one of the strongest traditions of nations, breaching it is a serious blow to international perception of a nations trustworthiness (think red wedding). The UK is likely bluffing but Assange doesn't want to take the chance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher
Hong Kong is unlikely to threaten gross violation of diplomatic protocol over a mere extradition request.
It seemed suspicious that in his video interview he said "there's a CIA station right up the street," thus alluding to his location relative to the US embassy. That seems like a way too carelessly revealing statement for an NSA hacker who is so cautious he reportedly covers his keyboard under a sweater while he types his password. So careless it seemed contrived.
I don't know in what twisted stretch of the imagination someone can consider Snowden a traitor, unless he is blatantly lying. He didn't reveal anything that would be bad enough to actually harm anyone's life. And if he's telling us the truth, he did nothing less than a public service service, putting his own life at risk.
If he was a true patriot, he'd have stood his ground and gone to trial. It doesn't seem very American to me to flee the country to avoid the repercussions of breaking the law. Mind you, I support him releasing this information.
I fail to see how that would have made him a "true patriot". Actually, fleeing the unjust wrath of a tyrannical government is about the most American quality there is. In any case, due to the Whistleblower Protection Act he broke no law.
Because this was one of the main reasons why the former immigrants (maybe even your ancestors if you're an american) had chosen America - they fled from tyranny or whatever other problem instead of doing something about it.
It could be that Eric Snowden is really just a cynical bastard who was trying to get away from his family and defect to China, bargaining with the rest of the secrets he knows to live a comfortable life.
Releasing the information to the public might be just to make up for it by doing something he thinks is the right thing to do. It would also distract everyone from the truth. If they never hear from him again, they may assume he got killed or imprisoned, and this makes him look like a martyr. This alternate story will keep his family from feeling the shame of being related to a defector.
And, maybe at the same time he wanted to say a big fuck you to his former employer, the US government.
It may seem far fetched, but with the information he has, he probably knows what happens to people who defected to China, and could evaluate whether it was a good idea or bad.
I guess we'll see if any ever hears from him again. If not, it fits right into this idea.
It's possible to also be a hero for jeopardising national security. Bad nations should be jeopardised. It's how they become good nations. They stay bad nations when their citizens repeat the mantras they've been taught rather than thinking. Bullshit like "My country, right or wrong" and worshipping flags and all that sort of junk.
It appears that the United States is still, incredible as it seems, a country producing citizens willing to put themselves at risk when the United States is threatened (and let's be serious for a moment here - terrorism was never a threat to the United States, but this is part of an ongoing existential threat to the United States, from its own government; the very people who should be saying "Calm down, folks; times may be scary but let's not throw away our country out of fear," are instead simply competing with each other, spurring hysteria for votes and metaphorically burning the flag they bizarrely teach children to worship). Long may these citizens last.
“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”
or the full version:
“I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country—when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’”—Schurz, “The Policy of Imperialism,” Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, pp. 119–20 (1913).
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1641.html
I prefer this Ben Franklin quote, it address the exact same question, but takes a different position:
"The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”" (Benjamin Franklin)
The prognosis is not good. There is unquestionably a new aristocracy who are not subject to the same rules as ordinary citizens. Wealth and power is bound in small groups who assist each other in keeping it. It's never been harder to transcend a humble (i.e. poor) start and join the ranks of wealth and power, so the lines between aristocracy and peasant are being solidified (although you wouldn't know it from the propaganda I hear, and in some places it really is just plain propaganda; I used to hear on US radio, just from out-of-nowhere, what were essentially sixty second propaganda pieces describing some guy who made a fortune in business).
While it's still a voting republic, the monied use that money to teach the poor how to vote (predictably, in a way that means they get to keep their money and power).
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." - Benjamin Franklin
Make no mistake, we live in very dangerous world but it's now clear that the danger is being generated or at least perpetuated by the US government. The war on terror is a lie. We're openly funding terror. The police state is here. The industrial military complex war machine will never stop.
The Patriot act is a danger to free people everywhere. What's wrong with getting a warrant? Due process and the US constitution is dead and you are okay with that? He is not Bradley Manning. Bradley Manning leak may have caused people to get killed. Some people don't want to live in a world where they are not free. You may be fine with that...I'm not.
The actual Franklin quote is "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Your version is paraphrased. The "essential" and "a little temporary" I believe are part of this debate. I'm deeply opposed to this blanket surveillance by the way.
Also Jefferson: "A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means"
Those who are concerned about privacy should first protest against Google/Facebook/Yahoo etc for selling your private data to advertisers.
PRSIM project was in place to catch potential terrorists and thanks to Snowden for blowing it up and now good luck catching the bad guys.
I have nothing to worry about or hide because I'm not doing anything bad and I don't understand why everyone is so mad about privacy all of a sudden, do you have anything to hide, are you doing anything bad? Govt is at least not selling your data to 3rd parties like corporations do by giving it to advertisers. If anything I trust my data with the govt.
The government couldn't keep thousands of diplomatic cables, videos, the War logs and now the existence of PRISM confidential. What makes you so confident that someone who as the same access has this guy did isn't selling your data to companies for his own personal benefit?
If you think this guy is dangerous, how can you be OK with the NSA collecting all this data about you, when they trust dangerous people with it?
You don't _think_ you have anything to hide. I'm sure if you found yourself under suspicion there would be plenty of bits and pieces in your telephone and internet history to paint you as someone who couldn't be trusted. Or worse.
Even if you think, as I do, Manning should have the book thrown at him, the Snowden case is quite a bit different. For one thing, Manning took a bunch of classified data he couldn't possibly have gone through in any detail and dumped it on the internet. People probably died as a result, and certainly it hurt US diplomatic efforts. It only takes five minutes of reading before you realize Bradly Manning has psychological problems and should never have been allowed access to anything important, and his data dump was probably more about his personal problems than it was about any kind of principle.
Snowden's case is quite a bit different. He only released details about the program he was familiar with. Clearly he broke the law and clearly he's forsworn, but IMO you can make a much better case for leniency or even a pardon.
Given the way this administration has been going after leakers (would have been the sign of Hitler's second coming had it been Bush) he shouldn't hold his breath expecting a pardon.
I disagree, but I gave you an upvote because your mindless rhetoric is as equally valuable and informative to this conversation as the other mindless rhetoric posts that do nothing more than agree with TFA and yet have not been marked down as far as your post.
This is everything I hate about Reddit/Chain Letters/Mom and Dads Internet.
You can make lists and ask for upvotes, but instead why don't you go and do some activism. Get off your ass and organize meetings, raise hell until you get people to care about the things you care about.
Sending chain letters on HackerNews is the most Masturbatory thing you can do on the internet besides the deed itself.
Offline action taken. I protest and don't just sit on my ass. I spread the word. Comments on hn is just one mechanism. I fully agree with you though, get off your ass and do something.
Could the media please make an effort not to write articles primarily responding to tweets? This is barely one step above writing articles responding to Youtube comments (please don't get any ideas). You'll find whatever crap you want to find on Twitter. There should be plenty of actual thought out and (intentionally) publicly published opinions longer than 140 characters out there to reply to. It brings your article down in my eyes when you respond to tweets of random private individuals.
I know these people are making public tweets, but ultimately they are not public figures and scouring twitter for their tweets and then exposing them to legions of your like minded followers for public evisceration seems... unprofessional.
I wish everyone would wait more than 24 hours before drawing such concrete conclusions. We barely know that much of the story here yet, and I imagine a lot more of it is going to come out in the next few days (such as his true location, more about his career in the IC, etc.).
I'm not saying that is the case here, but this news cycle is making everyone crazy - just think that we've known this guy's name for only approximately 24 hours.
One aspect of stories such as this is that the need to spin them is an essential component.
Universal surveillance / Assured liberty, to span both sides of this coin, are concepts which can only be sold if people believe in them. There are deep interests on either side of this debate, and one thing they're going to try to do is grab hold of the debate and steer it using language and concepts which are as charged as possible.
Plus there are plenty of idiots whole glom onto such concepts and repeat unverified information and sheer speculation. I'm exercising my user-tagging features heavily at the moment (no on HN, clearly, but elsewhere).
Will you believe ANYTHING the news puts about him? I won't. With a very few exceptions (Guardian) the MSM are suspect.
It's all state driven misinformation.
The US gov's "trash his reputation machine" is in overdrive.
That's irrelevant. Given the scale of the issue, there is almost no way we could confidently come to any conclusion about him in such a short amount of time. You're free to ignore input from the MSM, but you still need to allow time for more facts to surface.
The Guardian has the the distinct edge of having exclusive access to the few actual facts in this case. That is a clear advantage, no doubt about that. But make no mistake, the Guardian has a substantial arsenal of axes to grind.
That is because the NSA's spying program only works against those that believe they "have nothing to hide". Terrorists or whistle blowers that take even moderate precautions are immune.
That's another bunch of billions down the drain, unless it's designed for another purpose entirely. A certain segment of the elite have always dreamed about tracking every citizen. Larry Ellison of Oracle famously proposed a National Identity Card. So it goes...
Well not all terrorists take precautions, many are quite stupid and it only takes one to bring a whole network the attention of the NSA. The bigger problem is that even if their false positive rate is really low, they are hoovering so much data that the true positives (dumb terrorists) get drowned out by the noise.
Ironic? Not in the least. Even if he only mildly knew about the things he described he has an understanding of the points of tap the state actors have free access to. In all generalities hiding from the NSA should be trivial with simple precautions (as it pertains to the Internet). Part of the problem is that those points of access are generally revered as daily can't-live-withouts and present trivial access and collection easement. The more interesting point will likely be that they don't find him - and then generalizations can be made about the efficacy of the NSA without their crutch. Good old 'Catch Me if You Can'?
TL;DR
Just because it's the NSA doesn't mean you can't beat them at what they do. There's always someone in the room smarter than yourself.
You don't understand irony. Many people don't (Alanis Morissette.) If my house burns down, that's unfortunate. If I install a fire detection system in my house and through a fault in itself it burns my house down, that's ironic.
I'M MAD AS HELL...AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!!
“This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining the Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing but protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. It is not who we are. It is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA Court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers and that justice is not arbitrary. This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short cuts to protecting America.” - Obama
"Patriot", to me, suggests a unquestioning loyalty, lack of thought or perspective. "Traitor" suggests selling out both government and people to a foreign enemy.
Both are too broad, blunt, and loaded to describe anything useful.
What this man did was expose the government for the sake of the very people the government are supposed to answer to.
The problem his the the huge disconnect between government and the population.
I love the government's response here. "Sure, we can have a debate about state surveillance, but the guy that forced this debate IS A NO GOOD DIRTY TRAITOR!"
I do agree with that statement, but it doesn't mean they can do a whole lot of damage. From Iraq to Aaron Schwartz, when the US government turns it's big sloppy attention at you, watch out.
Ah but see, I take a near-fatalist attitude to that. Iraq will go down in the history books as a travesty, no doubt about that. But Swartz was treated in accordance with the law, even though the law has been modified over centuries to slowly add more protections.
So the way I see it, if your only goal when considering the law is how you will prevent this new ability from ever seriously affecting anyone innocent you've already locked yourself into a NULL set. Even in our justice system, with warrants and probable cause and the right to remain silent and the works we still lock up innocent people, do we not?
But imagine instead that we take that big huge nasty government and at least point it in a useful direction; perhaps that would be a more effective way to prevent a slide into tyranny in the future.
I know one thing and that is that I would not play the role of whistleblower and it is exactly because I do not care how much the US is spying as being someone from another country. So, I can only conclude that this makes him a patriot from my point of view, because why would he risk his job, etc.!?
So now breaking laws and committing treason is the new "patriotism" - I'll make note of this. Bradely Manning and this guy belong in the same jail cell or executed prefer the latter.
I'm surprised we haven't seen more discussion of NSA leaker as a potential foreign intelligence coup. Think of the timing, right before a summit with China. And he defects to Hong Kong. Not to get too nutty here, but its worth considering. Arguably our government did all this to try and protect us and here we are going ballistic - what if the leak was a setup to shatter our negotiating leverage? Lesser of two evils kind of thing.
It may in fact be the reverse -- he could be a double agent and this could be a publicity stunt. The USG may have determined that this leak was inevitable and they decided to take control of the situation.
What is the end-goal? Legitimizing and expediting the surveillance industrial complex. The recent news about Indian authorities wanting to establish their own surveillance infrastructure certainly has many USG government contractors licking their lips waiting for the purchase orders to roll in.
I said this in another thread* but I think that the choice of Hong Kong was shrewd. It puts him in a civilized country under the umbrella of a nation that won't be in a hurry to do the USG any favors, and would push back hard against any attempt to disappear him, since that would require action of an arguably military nature on their turf.
The whole idea of having democracy is that people should be able to throw out the people in power in case they make decisions that don't go well with the majority.
I don't have much problem in Government keeping phone records (I don't use a cellphone any way) but I do have a problem they doing this without telling me. NSA leaker has done the right thing. He must be hailed as a hero.
Why does everyone assume China is doing industrial espionage, but nobody imagines PRISM is being used for that. If a low level employee has such access, the only question is how many people are using this to cheat the stock market? Are there trading algorithms that have access to PRISM?
I took it for granted that PRISM is also used for industrial espionage. It seems like this is the "low hanging fruit" for such a system. I'm not surprised that this isn't something the media is talking about since we're giving China such a hard time about it.
358 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 307 ms ] threadTo be fair, I think more people know the word "pardon" than the word "extradition"...
Five. There are five crowds of people on reddit/HN. The commenters, the voters, the readers, the waiters, and the lazy. And also the submitters. Six. There six crowds of people on reddit/HN! And... ;-)
It's kind of interesting to witness the interaction between HN's overlapping circles of technologists, civil libertarians, and entrepreneurs.
To be fair, I agree that we need to avoid letting this discussion devolve into a frenzied mob of speculation. Misinformation can almost be worse than ignorance.
This is the most alarming thing I've seen in my adult life.
Actually they are.
>most people assume taht the government already has/had access to what you do on your cellphone/facebook/internet searches
I think that most people assume that email is just like mail: private, and protected by the 4th amendment. I think most people assume that their phone records are similarly protected. And I doubt that most people, possibly including people in Congress, know what is possible to infer from the data they are collecting.
I think that most people assume that email is just like mail: private, and protected by the 4th amendment. I think most people assume that their phone records are similarly protected.
The law has said otherwise for >30 years, and I think most people who think about it are aware that their email and phone records are stored by 3rd parties. Do you have evidence for your view, or are you just projecting what you think should be the case onto everyone else?
Projecting, mainly. Just like you. Pew did a phone survey that shows 56% of people believe it's okay to give up privacy to defeat terrorism. But even that doesn't really go to what people believe about their privacy right now.
No, I think we should have more robust privacy protections and that this would require a constitutional amendment, but I'm also aware that my view has little traction at present. I'm sanguine about monitoring of things like CDRs because it seems an inevitable result of technology, and it's unrealistic to expect the government to put itself at a legal disadvantage compared to individuals and businesses. On the other hand, this fact of modern technological life is why I choose not to put my life on services like Facebook, despite the significant social disadvantages that entails.
> most people assume taht the government already has/had access to what you do on your cellphone/facebook/internet searches so actual evidence of data manaing doesn't seem all that big of a revelation.
No, you're not projecting at all, are you.
Second, if the resolution doesn't go far enough to restore confidence in US cloud and telecom technology companies, it could have a large effect on the tech economy.
Third, the only practical solution may to adopt real security measures: End-to-end strong encryption. Encrypted storage. Audited open source systems.
Keep in mind also that when someone submit the same URL as already submitted it increases the count. So someone reading that article and not checking that it's already been posted counts toward that 46. I'm only mentioning because I've done this and I've had stories upvoted to, say, 10 that never were commented on.
Given the subject matter, doesn't it seem reasonable that a lot of people would see more risk than benefit in commenting? If your primary goal in life is activism, then sure. But most of us have other primary goals.
This is sarcastic, right?
It is probably also the case the UK wouldn't arrest Assange if he left under diplomatic protection, despite their claims that they would, since it would be a gross violation of diplomatic protocol. Remember that a Libyan opened fire on a crowd of Londoners from balcony of the Libyan embassy with a sub-machine gun, killing a young police woman and the UK still allowed the shooter to leave the country without charges. Diplomatic protocol is one of the strongest traditions of nations, breaching it is a serious blow to international perception of a nations trustworthiness (think red wedding). The UK is likely bluffing but Assange doesn't want to take the chance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher
Hong Kong is unlikely to threaten gross violation of diplomatic protocol over a mere extradition request.
https://twitter.com/pourmecoffee/status/344202042019045377
So you couldn't imagine X would be true about Y unless Y did something that many people do all the time?
Releasing the information to the public might be just to make up for it by doing something he thinks is the right thing to do. It would also distract everyone from the truth. If they never hear from him again, they may assume he got killed or imprisoned, and this makes him look like a martyr. This alternate story will keep his family from feeling the shame of being related to a defector.
And, maybe at the same time he wanted to say a big fuck you to his former employer, the US government.
It may seem far fetched, but with the information he has, he probably knows what happens to people who defected to China, and could evaluate whether it was a good idea or bad.
I guess we'll see if any ever hears from him again. If not, it fits right into this idea.
It appears that the United States is still, incredible as it seems, a country producing citizens willing to put themselves at risk when the United States is threatened (and let's be serious for a moment here - terrorism was never a threat to the United States, but this is part of an ongoing existential threat to the United States, from its own government; the very people who should be saying "Calm down, folks; times may be scary but let's not throw away our country out of fear," are instead simply competing with each other, spurring hysteria for votes and metaphorically burning the flag they bizarrely teach children to worship). Long may these citizens last.
or the full version:
“I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country—when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’”—Schurz, “The Policy of Imperialism,” Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz, vol. 6, pp. 119–20 (1913). http://www.bartleby.com/73/1641.html
"The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”" (Benjamin Franklin)
While it's still a voting republic, the monied use that money to teach the poor how to vote (predictably, in a way that means they get to keep their money and power).
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." - Benjamin Franklin
Make no mistake, we live in very dangerous world but it's now clear that the danger is being generated or at least perpetuated by the US government. The war on terror is a lie. We're openly funding terror. The police state is here. The industrial military complex war machine will never stop.
The Patriot act is a danger to free people everywhere. What's wrong with getting a warrant? Due process and the US constitution is dead and you are okay with that? He is not Bradley Manning. Bradley Manning leak may have caused people to get killed. Some people don't want to live in a world where they are not free. You may be fine with that...I'm not.
If anything, I expect it would increase National Security, as everyone will toe the line more and more for fear of getting caught.
PRSIM project was in place to catch potential terrorists and thanks to Snowden for blowing it up and now good luck catching the bad guys.
I have nothing to worry about or hide because I'm not doing anything bad and I don't understand why everyone is so mad about privacy all of a sudden, do you have anything to hide, are you doing anything bad? Govt is at least not selling your data to 3rd parties like corporations do by giving it to advertisers. If anything I trust my data with the govt.
If you think this guy is dangerous, how can you be OK with the NSA collecting all this data about you, when they trust dangerous people with it?
Snowden's case is quite a bit different. He only released details about the program he was familiar with. Clearly he broke the law and clearly he's forsworn, but IMO you can make a much better case for leniency or even a pardon.
Given the way this administration has been going after leakers (would have been the sign of Hitler's second coming had it been Bush) he shouldn't hold his breath expecting a pardon.
First they came for the conservatives, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a conservative.
Then they came for the tea party member, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a tea party member.
Then they came for the Libertarians, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a libertarian.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for the Christians, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Christian.
Then they came for the Gun Owner, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Gun Owner.
Then they came for the activists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a activist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
You can make lists and ask for upvotes, but instead why don't you go and do some activism. Get off your ass and organize meetings, raise hell until you get people to care about the things you care about.
Sending chain letters on HackerNews is the most Masturbatory thing you can do on the internet besides the deed itself.
Offline action taken. I protest and don't just sit on my ass. I spread the word. Comments on hn is just one mechanism. I fully agree with you though, get off your ass and do something.
I'm not one to compare the holocaust with mass surveillance anyways.
Cheers for coming back and trying to add a little sensibility to the discussion :).
Also, you seemed to have missed the indiscriminate nature of the intelligence gathering. There were no divisions being targeted-- it was all of us.
I know these people are making public tweets, but ultimately they are not public figures and scouring twitter for their tweets and then exposing them to legions of your like minded followers for public evisceration seems... unprofessional.
How long until they start committing citizens Judge Dredd style?
In the past there have been dissidents like this where it turned out years later that a foreign intelligence service was behind them the whole time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_and_Mitchell_defection).
I'm not saying that is the case here, but this news cycle is making everyone crazy - just think that we've known this guy's name for only approximately 24 hours.
Universal surveillance / Assured liberty, to span both sides of this coin, are concepts which can only be sold if people believe in them. There are deep interests on either side of this debate, and one thing they're going to try to do is grab hold of the debate and steer it using language and concepts which are as charged as possible.
Plus there are plenty of idiots whole glom onto such concepts and repeat unverified information and sheer speculation. I'm exercising my user-tagging features heavily at the moment (no on HN, clearly, but elsewhere).
The US gov's "trash his reputation machine" is in overdrive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8153539.stm
It's why this sort of large scale surveillance is really only effective as tool for coercing public dissent ("We know all about you Mr. Michaelwww").
TL;DR Just because it's the NSA doesn't mean you can't beat them at what they do. There's always someone in the room smarter than yourself.
-- an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
Barack Obama: 10 Questions: Warrantless Wiretaps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4
“This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining the Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing but protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. It is not who we are. It is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA Court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers and that justice is not arbitrary. This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short cuts to protecting America.” - Obama
I understand your anger.... and i am curious: what actions are you planning to take?
"Patriot", to me, suggests a unquestioning loyalty, lack of thought or perspective. "Traitor" suggests selling out both government and people to a foreign enemy.
Both are too broad, blunt, and loaded to describe anything useful.
What this man did was expose the government for the sake of the very people the government are supposed to answer to.
The problem his the the huge disconnect between government and the population.
noun
1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.
#2 seems bang-on to me. A perfect description of Snowden.
So the way I see it, if your only goal when considering the law is how you will prevent this new ability from ever seriously affecting anyone innocent you've already locked yourself into a NULL set. Even in our justice system, with warrants and probable cause and the right to remain silent and the works we still lock up innocent people, do we not?
But imagine instead that we take that big huge nasty government and at least point it in a useful direction; perhaps that would be a more effective way to prevent a slide into tyranny in the future.
The govt can't admit to wrongdoing, so they have to use the word traitor.
What is the end-goal? Legitimizing and expediting the surveillance industrial complex. The recent news about Indian authorities wanting to establish their own surveillance infrastructure certainly has many USG government contractors licking their lips waiting for the purchase orders to roll in.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5855146
I don't have much problem in Government keeping phone records (I don't use a cellphone any way) but I do have a problem they doing this without telling me. NSA leaker has done the right thing. He must be hailed as a hero.