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

Pardon Snowden

pardonsnowden.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 814 posts

Re: Pardon Snowden

#121

Post by pjc50 »

tn13 wrote: post #83
captainmuon wrote: post #60

Maybe a naive question, but what would the risk be for me to sign this? I wonder if I (a US citizen) might get trouble the next time at the border? Or get a higher score in some database, that combined with other things might get me into trouble? Increased scrutiny from the IRS (which should have nothing to do with this, but "they" might say hell why not?)? Inability to get security clearances in future? Being target…

I am reasonably certain signing this petition would increase your bad karma with NSA. This in itself may not cause a problem but next time you come on their radar this might hurt you. > A mode of thought I would expect in socialist countries, not the US... USA is moving rapidly towards socialism though it is much behind than say UK or France. This sort of government overreach is inevitable.

The UK's "peak 'socialism'" time was in the past. Depending on how you apply metrics to socialism it would either be the good parts (Attlee/Bevan establishing schools and NHS after the war) or the bad parts ("winter of discontent" 78/79).

UK surveillance is part of the permanent state and is imperialist in nature.

In some ways, the UK is less authoritarian than in the past - the Human Rights Act has had a real effect, along with the Good Friday Agreement. There are no longer troops deployed in the streets with live ammunition nor elected MPs who are forbidden to speak on television.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#122

Post by krylon »

ekianjo wrote: post #3

Pardonning Snowden while allowing the NSA to continue their business as usual would be strange.

It would make sense, though, in a twisted way - it would send the message "Nothing you did has had any consequence whatsoever, and to show you how little we care, we are not even sending you to jail for it".

(I consider that highly unlikely, though.)

Re: Pardon Snowden

#123

Post by atmosx »

akie wrote: post #103
JMCQ87 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're allowed your quota of one medium-impact dissident action per week, just like everyone else. As it helps to keep up maintaining the illusion of democracy and free speech, you are actually doing your country a great service. If you start to do more, however... Consider yourself warned. ^^ In this case, I can reassure you though: Online petition clicktivism has been shown to be very ineffective, so it's only cons…

Depends on where you are. I have friends in Turkey who signed an online petition and (the next day) lost their jobs over it. Some of the other people who signed that petition are not allowed to leave the country anymore, and some are even being detained. Very scary.

Well Turkey at this point in time looks like THE MOST dangerous place to be if you're not pro-government. The witch-hunt Erdogan set up is crazy.

I used to travel twice a year to Istanbul. Now I don't see myself landing foot there for a very, very long time.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#124

Post by captainmuon »

paulintrognon wrote: post #64

I believe when you wrote "socialist" you meant "authoritarianist"? Please don't mix-up those two concepts

In principle, yes you are right. However, there is only so much hedging and differentiation I can put into a post without turning it into an essay.

What I wanted to say is "realsocialist" a la former Soviet Union or East Germany. I think part of the confusion is that I live in Germany, where socialist always means that kind of one-party authoritarian system. By this definition, e.g. Bernie Sanders would be a (left-wing) social democrat, but not a socialist.

I know for example in France, the middle-left-wing party calls themselves socialist... I believe they are slightly left of what you'd call "liberal" in the US.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#125

Post by newman8r »

newman8r wrote: post #100

I am for a full pardon. The risks to our privacy are greater now than they have ever been and a lot of people think it will keep us safe. If I knew more about history I'd be tempted to compare it to something like a more insidious version of the cuban missile crisis, but it's probably a bad comparison. Any historians around here - what would you compare it to?

How about comparing it to the war on drugs over the last 100 years? is the war on privacy taking a similar path?

Starts out using racism by claiming we need to restrict privacy (drugs) to prevent muslims (hispanics) from terrorizing us. Next it's associated with sexual deviants (reefer madness), and anyone who opposes it must be one of them. Then people start to realize that privacy isn't just an ideal, but it's a physical feeling of freedom - a feeling that they have never felt before, the freedom to be the captain of your life (damn hippies!) - people have tasted freedom and they want more of it. To fight against it, governments spends trillions of dollars hunting out anyone who provides privacy services (drug smuggling).

Eventually there is reform,etc etc... so, it took like a century for cannabis.. 20 years for privacy?

Re: Pardon Snowden

#126

Post by felice_landry »

captainmuon wrote: post #117
JMCQ87 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're allowed your quota of one medium-impact dissident action per week, just like everyone else. As it helps to keep up maintaining the illusion of democracy and free speech, you are actually doing your country a great service. If you start to do more, however... Consider yourself warned. ^^ In this case, I can reassure you though: Online petition clicktivism has been shown to be very ineffective, so it's only cons…

I "love" how China actually tried to formalize this some time ago. Every citizen would get a citizen score, like our credit ratings, but grading how politically loyal they were. There was quite a bit of outrage on the western internet about this. The "funny" thing is, our governments are probably doing very similar things (though still to a lesser degree, and secretly). A big difference is that China often doesn't ha…

It's hilarious I think. It's sort of the same end result, but the means to get there are a bit different.

Having a Citizen Score would send me into a fit of rage, but I probably have some kind of other score I don't know about. Or I'm on a List. Those Lists. Must take much money to maintain them.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#127

Post by newman8r »

felice_landry wrote: post #119
newman8r wrote: post #100

I am for a full pardon. The risks to our privacy are greater now than they have ever been and a lot of people think it will keep us safe. If I knew more about history I'd be tempted to compare it to something like a more insidious version of the cuban missile crisis, but it's probably a bad comparison. Any historians around here - what would you compare it to?

I'm not a historian, but consider that the "medium" if you like, the Internet, all it's awful mudpie history of protocols etc, is ripe for the plucking by both sides. Do you stand idly by while the hostile ones (whatever that might mean) use it to their advantage, or do you get your government with their huge funds to help in this regard? The latter, of course. Trouble is when that agency becomes rogue, which it cert…

Yeah it's a tough question, and due to the complex nature of the technical and political systems involved, it's probably impossible to simplify/distill the situation down so that ordinary people can have any sort of informed opinion. Right now, people say "give us privacy" because it's a smart thing to say - but they don't understand what they're fighting for so I fear they'll be quick to give up at the first sign of resistance.

There might not be a single person in the world who understands all the moving parts well enough to say what's right.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#129

Post by dsr_ »

BjoernKW wrote: post #120
bertil wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure it’s a fair argument to exclude dozens of the wealthiest countries in the world because they own definition of socialism —that they practice— does not meet your imagined one. The definition is not complicated: have key industrial assets, notably transport infrastructure, owned by public authorities.

By that definition France is a socialist country. I suppose you could say that to some extent but France isn't what one usually thinks of when it comes to real-world socialism. I think socialists in particular will argue against that notion. Even worse though: Most totalitarian countries fit that description, too.

That would be because "socialist" and "totalitarian" are orthogonal.

One describes the methods of organization of the state and its economy; the other describes the goals of the government of the state.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#130

Post by csydas »

WilliamDhalgren wrote: post #55
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pardoned or shot dead, makes little difference now Law is built on precedent. This is how a two-hundred year old law about papers in one's house was used to try and pry open an iPhone. It is also why people get rightly indignant about seemingly small things. In the specific context of the data Snowden exfiltrated, you are correct - a pardon changes little. But for the next Snowden? Or the political climate surround…

yeah, its what it does for the next Snowden that's most important here-- but that's why I suggested actual legal reform is necessary. How can a pardon set a precedent? Its an act of an executive, not a court? It would be up to whoever is the president when the next Snowden occurs to grant clemence or no at their total executive discretion, no? So how's that a precedent? And how comforting it would be to the next Snow…

I believe your interpretation on the pardon "precedent" is correct - legally no precedent is really set. A presidential pardon is basically an act of mercy, not a legal opinion.

However, as a social precedent, it may give the next Snowden a more favorable outlook with the public, which in turn would make sympathy from lawmakers less risky.

Or maybe nothing at all. But you are right, legally probably wouldn't do much

Post reply on HN