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

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#131

Post by dllthomas »

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…

The petition was for a pardon. The law allows for pardon. Issuing a pardon would in no way undermine "the rule of law".

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#132

Post by dllthomas »

kajecounterhack wrote: post #46
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…

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…

As I posted in the HN thread about the petition, it's worth noting that Snowden has already been in effective exile for longer than Martin Luther King, Jr spent in jail over his entire life. What are the odds that Snowden is facing the same order of magnitude of punishment, were he to return home?

This is not to diminish the work of Dr. King but to say that the tactics he employed and decisions he made were made in a dramatically different context, where the way he could stay most involved and get the most done was to spend some time in jail. Snowden has stayed more involved from abroad than he would have been able to from where they'd have thrown him.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#133

Post by dllthomas »

ikeboy wrote: post #90
gonehome wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

"Not by breaking them then demanding a pardon."

You can't change the laws through the political process when disclosure of the laws is illegal.

Further, Snowden is not demanding a pardon - we are demanding Snowden be pardoned.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#134

Post by throwawayaway »

sonoffett wrote: post #54
travjones wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! I did see the response to the petition and thought the exact same thing. The government is pretty much saying, "We know what you did was just. But you broke the law, so come back to suffer in federal prison." "In the land of the free and the home of the brave..." Haha. Ed Snowden is brave and we are freer as Americans knowing what the government is capable of when it comes to electronic surveillance.

Are we ? The mass Internet surveillance by the u.s. gov was known well before snowden [1], albeit the specific actors were not. Post snowden I've seen public outcry lead to a destabilization of NSA meanwhile private corporations are collecting more data than ever--is this really freer? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

Room 641A was passed off as anomaly, a one off. It was also questioned and all too easily dismissed. The magnitude of room 641a, a 'once off' and the snowden leaks are totally different.

Clapper and Alexander lying to congressional hearings too. There's no comparison.

> private corporations are collecting more data than ever

This has always been inevitable, if at some point the amount of data about ANYTHING decreases I'll surprised.

The 'freedom' that emerged from the snowden leaks was the ability to discuss and mitigate the implications of these facts without being dismissed as a crank.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#135

Post by mike_hearn »

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…

You're engaged in a nirvana fallacy: comparing something real to some theoretical but non-existent ideal.

Bitcoin "solves the problem" to a much greater extent than any other actual system. It provides a base on which privacy can be improved over time. Tumbling is not required to upgrade privacy in Bitcoin, there are many other techniques that can help too.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#136

Post by danenania »

irishcoffee wrote: post #119
danenania wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I wonder is where the line is for people who automatically defer to government authority in these situations. How bad do the transgressions have to be before a whistleblower is justified in coming forward through any means necessary? For many, spying on billions of innocent people in direct violation of the country's constitution isn't sufficient, so what would be? What if Snowden had instead revealed proof of p…

> "...in direct violation of the country's constitution..." I'm too lazy to try and verify this myself. You seem to have information on how to verify this. Can you point me in at least a vague general direction so I can read up more on it?

Sure, here you go: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#137

Post by gonzo »

irishcoffee wrote: post #118
danenania wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, many members of the Bush administration ordered torture and medical experimentation on human beings, a flat out war crime. James Clapper lied under oath to Congress. Hillary Clinton kept classified material on a personal server at her house. These are all serious crimes with plenty of publicly available evidence that they were committed. The people who committed them are all inside the country and easy to find, s…

> many members of the Bush administration ordered torture and medical experimentation on human beings The way you phrased this made me curious, so I looked it up. I don't know if it was your intention, but the way you phrased it made it sound like they were preforming medical procedures, possibly heinous medical procedures. In fact, the experiments were collecting data[0]: "...and crossed the line into human experime…

Full report

https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/Experiments_in_Torture....

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#138

Post by edc117 »

eli wrote: post #126
danenania wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does have a bearing on Edward Snowden given that we demonstrably do NOT have actual rule of law. The intelligence agencies have clearly compromised the integrity of our justice system, which ensures Snowden would not be treated fairly. Until the system can show it's worthy of our trust by pursuing powerful people who flagrantly violate the law in the public view, there is no reasonable argument that Snowden should…

> there is no reasonable argument that Snowden should be subjected to its plainly unequal notion of justice. Couldn't everyone accused of any crime use that excuse?

Presumably, yes! Which is why it's so important for the law to be impartial and apply equally to everyone, especially the rich and the powerful.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#139

Post by irishcoffee »

danenania wrote: post #136
irishcoffee wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "...in direct violation of the country's constitution..." I'm too lazy to try and verify this myself. You seem to have information on how to verify this. Can you point me in at least a vague general direction so I can read up more on it?

Sure, here you go: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...

This didn't answer my question.

> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What was violated here? Break it down for me.

Re: Edward Snowden at IETF 93

#140

Post by ikeboy »

dllthomas wrote: post #133
ikeboy wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 pr…

"Not by breaking them then demanding a pardon." You can't change the laws through the political process when disclosure of the laws is illegal. Further, Snowden is not demanding a pardon - we are demanding Snowden be pardoned.

I addressed that elsewhere in the thread. The laws aren't secret, it's the court rulings that are secret. The fact that there's a secret court is known, though. So you could campaign against that court without leaking classified information.

Imagine a world in which Snowden resigned, then publically pushed for unclassifying all FISA court rulings, with the obvious implication (or he could even say explicitly) that he saw things there that shouldn't be secret.

He could even tell members of Congress with clearances and get them to announce it publicly in Congress, which effectively legally brings it into the public record (something like that happened with the Pentagon papers).

Post reply on HN