Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Edward Snowden at IETF 93

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 145 posts

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#81

Post by Panino »

travjones wrote: post #26

I think it's a shame how mainstream media suggests that Snowden is a "coward" for not "coming home to face his charges." It's clear that he released confidential docs to reporters and this would be incredibly easy to prove in court, thereby landing him in prison for the rest of his life. I don't know any sane person that would surrender to this type of treatment, considering that he wouldn't be able to defend his act…

Ad-hominem attacks usually say more about the sender than the receiver. "Coward" in particular has historically been most often employed against conscientious objectors and others who don't want to kill strangers in someone else's war, thus risking their reputations, employment, and freedom. The people making this attack today are appealing to those who grew up with conscription (forced violent labor) who mostly either think it's normal or lack the courage to speak out. And the people/media repeating it either enthusiastically or uncritically are announcing their own positions. So ad-hominem attacks can actually be quite illuminating, though not in the way the attacker intended.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#82

Post by thoughtpolice »

throwaway7767 wrote: post #64
tptacek wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote a long piece that says everything I'd say in a comment here: http://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/01/15/against-dnssec/

Thanks, that was a good read, and cleared up a lot of misunderstanding I had about DNSSEC! You make a strong argument that DNSSEC cannot deliver any real advantages. I did not see anything to support your earlier statement that it's worse than nothing, but given the general uselessness of the protocol, I certainly won't be deploying it.

One thing that makes it 'worse than nothing' is that it contributes to amplification attacks due to large response packets: http://dnscurve.org/amplification.html

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#83

Post by slg »

pfg wrote: post #80
comrh wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this isn't a bad point. Anyone have a response because the whistlerblower tag gets used a lot but he did release a lot that seemed to be normal spying.

His argument was that it should be not his decision whether releasing a document is in the public interest, but rather something journalists should take care of (although he did select those journalists himself, so it's not fair to say it's a completely independent process). Still better than a full dump à la WkiLeaks, but the big question is whether the journalists have the OpSec skills to avoid leaking the document…

That is an awful defense. You can't just dump all the documents on a journalist and then blame the journalist for what is being released.

It doesn't matter if it was directly or through an intermediary, everything that Snowden gave to journalists, Snowden leaked to the public.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#84

Post by pfg »

slg wrote: post #83
pfg wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His argument was that it should be not his decision whether releasing a document is in the public interest, but rather something journalists should take care of (although he did select those journalists himself, so it's not fair to say it's a completely independent process). Still better than a full dump à la WkiLeaks, but the big question is whether the journalists have the OpSec skills to avoid leaking the document…

That is an awful defense. You can't just dump all the documents on a journalist and then blame the journalist for what is being released. It doesn't matter if it was directly or through an intermediary, everything that Snowden gave to journalists, Snowden leaked to the public.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't be held responsible if all of those documents were to leak. He did, however, specifically select journalists who already experienced heavy surveillance from state actors and had at least some knowledge of proper OpSec and encryption to mitigate this risk to some degree. He acknowledged that it could leak, but still thought it's a risk worth taking (I can't remember his exact words, I think it was brought up in an interview.)

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#85

Post by gonehome »

ikeboy wrote: post #77
kajecounterhack wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, did you see https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snow... > If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions. He should come home to the United States, and be judged by a j…

There have been plenty of abuses that came to light without the person who exposed them going to jail. There have even been NSA whistleblowers that stayed in the US and didn't get prosecuted (see e.g. William Binney, who has called Snowden a traitor http://www.businessinsider.com/william-binney-and-snowden-tr... ).

A little disingenuous considering in that linked article Binney states that it was more the publishing of certain content he disagreed with and not Snowden's actions.

It looks like he still strongly supports what Snowden did.

I also think Binney's case is a bit different - when you don't leak the actual documents the intelligence agencies can (and do) just lie. If not an outright lie it'll be a carefully stated misleading truth ('not in this program'). Snowden's leak is a bigger deal to the intelligence agencies because he has the actual documents and they don't know what he took which makes it hard to influence the story (since it's easier to be definitively caught).

Putting Binney in prison would have likely attracted more attention than not.

John Kerry and other people requesting Snowden to come to the US to stand trial are ignoring that what he did isn't a question of whether it was legal (it wasn't), but if it was right. You won't win a trial on principle when it's the law that's the problem.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#86

Post by vectorpush »

superuser2 wrote: post #65
mike_hearn wrote: post #56

Ed's views on Bitcoin are a little surprising. I'm not sure what he means by "nobody likes to talk about Bitcoin any more". It's not that old! One of the problems Bitcoin solves is that you cannot have personas or unlinked identities in the traditional financial system. Governments, and therefore the banks they control, all view financial privacy or pseudonymity as only useful for criminals. That's a rather narrow vi…

Bitcoin does not solve this problem; you can follow the money from the exchange to the consumer's wallet to the merchant. It's only anonymous if you're using a tumbling service, and transferring your money to a tumbling service is an unambiguous broadcast to the entire world that you are committing the federal crime of money laundering. If they ever increase in popularity, you can bet that regulators will routinely t…

It's also been demonstrated that tumblers are not always reliable depending on the implementation and how they are used. There is also the risk that the tumbling service could be seized, hacked or operated by "unethical" individuals. It's a complete gamble as far as anonymity is concerned.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#87

Post by rbcoffee »

Without blindly claiming that Snowden was a staged act by the NSA and done on purpose to shake things up and ruffle feathers, it certainly is an interesting thought experiment to run if you love conspiracy theories. Imagine that was the case! Possible explanations for a false flag:

1.) Public needed to know where there money was going 2.) Not enough to know we're being watched. We need tangible evidence of surveillance apparatus 3.) Leaks designed to bolster the web and privacy; look how many people suddenly care about security 4.) NSA got tired of working in a black box and wanted to flaunt its power 5.) Other reasons?

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#88

Post by tracker1 »

eli wrote: post #73
travjones wrote: post #26

I think it's a shame how mainstream media suggests that Snowden is a "coward" for not "coming home to face his charges." It's clear that he released confidential docs to reporters and this would be incredibly easy to prove in court, thereby landing him in prison for the rest of his life. I don't know any sane person that would surrender to this type of treatment, considering that he wouldn't be able to defend his act…

I think this is something reasonable people can disagree about. The rule of law should apply to everyone equally. I get that Ed Snowden is a likable guy and the documents he released may even have been a force of positive change in the world, but that doesn't necessarily absolve him of having to face trial. You can't go easy on him just because you agree with his politics. Our whistleblowing laws are woefully inadequ…

While he shouldn't be absolved... he shouldn't be charged with war crimes or espionage in this case. There are many other things he could be charged with allowing for a reasonable defense.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#89

Post by eli »

tracker1 wrote: post #88
eli wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is something reasonable people can disagree about. The rule of law should apply to everyone equally. I get that Ed Snowden is a likable guy and the documents he released may even have been a force of positive change in the world, but that doesn't necessarily absolve him of having to face trial. You can't go easy on him just because you agree with his politics. Our whistleblowing laws are woefully inadequ…

While he shouldn't be absolved... he shouldn't be charged with war crimes or espionage in this case. There are many other things he could be charged with allowing for a reasonable defense.

War crimes? That seems like a stretch.

He's charged with theft of gov't property, unauthorized communication of national defense information, and willful disclosure of classified intelligence. You can view the charging document here: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/us-vs-edwar...

What is the more appropriate charge you think should have been levied instead?

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#90

Post by ikeboy »

gonehome wrote: post #85
ikeboy wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been plenty of abuses that came to light without the person who exposed them going to jail. There have even been NSA whistleblowers that stayed in the US and didn't get prosecuted (see e.g. William Binney, who has called Snowden a traitor http://www.businessinsider.com/william-binney-and-snowden-tr... ).

A little disingenuous considering in that linked article Binney states that it was more the publishing of certain content he disagreed with and not Snowden's actions. It looks like he still strongly supports what Snowden did. I also think Binney's case is a bit different - when you don't leak the actual documents the intelligence agencies can (and do) just lie. If not an outright lie it'll be a carefully stated misle…

>A little disingenuous considering in that linked article Binney states that it was more the publishing of certain content he disagreed with and not Snowden's actions.

That was a direct result of Snowden's actions. I don't see the argument that his exposing the US spying on other countries is "right", and deserves a pardon. If he had only leaked local surveillance, I'd have a weaker case.

>You won't win a trial on principle when it's the law that's the problem.

If the problem was that he disagreed with the law, in the US, the way to change laws you disagree with is through the political process. Not by breaking them then demanding a pardon.

Post reply on HN