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

331–340 of 814 posts

Re: Pardon Snowden

#331

Post by AnkhMorporkian »

strictnein wrote: post #293
AnkhMorporkian wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm for a pardon for Snowden, but not Manning. Snowden released info on a deeply classified and unethical program, targeted to dismantle the programs in question. Manning carte blanche released TONS of data about TONS of things, trusting only Wikileaks to filter out sensitive data.

Snowden carte blanche stole and gave up "TONS of data about TONS of things", trusting only Greenwald, et al to filter out sensitive data.

I actually agree with you there. If you browse some of my older comment history, I made that exact point that he trusted a foreign journalist team to filter sensitive NOFORN and SAP information. However, I believe the net good that has come out of that disclosure, and the "I'm doing this to expose deep government malfeasance" as opposed to "The government sucks here's all the data" warrants the difference in treatment.

Edit: That being said, if we ever do get evidence that China or Russia did manage to get that data during his trip there, I'd change my tune immediately. That would be high treason, at least if it was intentional.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#332

Post by npiazza83 »

thrd wrote: post #203
mirap wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about Notrh Korea, Russia, China, Syria, ... ?? The list is going on..

Comeon, in Russia, you can sign thousand petition like this, it will be simple ignored, goverment didnt cares that their people sign. I sign a lot petitions and nobody threaten or fire from work

Bear in mind most Americans can't distinguish between Russia and Ukraine on a map... Unless its a board game.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#333

Post by JoeAltmaier »

lettergram wrote: post #328
vcarl wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gary Johnson wants to get rid of the Department of Education[0] and is against mandatory vaccinations[1]. [0]: https://www.johnsonweld.com/education [1]: https://twitter.com/govgaryjohnson/status/113419678730301440

I'm not going to get into a flame war, but pretty much everything related to libertarians are freedom of choice. I strongly agree that mandatory vaccinations on a national level should not be required. As long as it does not harm me, I don't think I should disallow someone to do it. That is to say, I don't think I should, or society should pressure our beliefs on others. I would vaccinate my own children because it m…

But everything affects others, especially in this ever-more-connected-and-congested world. Standards are useful for computer, and for people.

Libertarianism has attractions, but idealism only goes so far. I believe the Libertarian world would collapse in flames (or disease, or hunger, or congestion).

Re: Pardon Snowden

#334

Post by pc86 »

RRRA wrote: post #206

If you fear signing this, _and don't_, you really don't understand long risk mitigation and are just preparing yourself to be scared even more in the long run. Just like privacy doesn't exist without others, signing this will at least help by giving strength, and privacy, in numbers. Leaving this resistance alone, as if they were some heroes you respect but won't stand by, is really a cowardly way of being anti socie…

Thank you. Signed.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#335

Post by acobster »

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…

All acts of resistance have consequences. That's because it's important, and "they" know it's important. I think it's reasonable to assume this gets you put on a watchlist if you're not already.

As others have (snarkily) pointed out, this is a pretty mild form of resistance, so I'd imagine the consequences would be pretty mild.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#336

Post by tptacek »

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…

There is no risk to signing this.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#337

Post by ohthehugemanate »

segmondy wrote: post #321

These digital signatures are the equivalent of chain letters, send this to 100 people and your wish will come true. If we as a people want to make change, we should use the net to organize people to make change in the real world not the digital world. Make time, get in the streets, protest, actually pick up the phone and call your politicians, write to them, write to the government. Overwhelm them so much that they a…

As someone who has done strategy for NGOs for years... the petition doesn't make change, of course not. It makes a mailing list with consistency bias in the NGO's favor. Once you've signed a useless petition, you are MUCH more likely to do the next thing they ask of you. Tell a friend, donate money, call a politician, attend a rally, whatever. It is a very important tool, but it is a gateway tool.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#338

Post by forgotpwtomain »

klausjensen wrote: post #208
forgotpwtomain wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also made no effort to disclose or inform internally - it's pretty cut and dry. Even if the President personally wanted to, it's simply not a precedent any administration can afford to set.

That is not correct. Quote: Asked specifically if he felt like he had exhausted all other avenues before deciding to leak classified information to the public, Snowden responded: Yes. I had reported these clearly problematic programs to more than ten distinct officials, none of whom took any action to address them. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/07...

> That is not correct.

It is in fact correct. You have an outdated claim by Snowden which is not supported by any evidence, this year NSA released emails of his 'internal' communications with FOIA and it was discussed (here on HN [0]). As far as documented evidence his only attempt to raise an issue internally was emailing legal counsel regarding a 'test question' - this is laughable.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11837578

Re: Pardon Snowden

#339

Post by npiazza83 »

flexie wrote: post #175
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…

Your comment puts Snowden's actions in perspective. He risked his liberty, if not life, so that we could learn about the scope of US mass surveillance. You worry about the risk of being registered as a Snowden sympathizer if you voice your support and the discomfort that might bring with it. Democracy and rule of law doesn't come for free.

To quote a man who was actively surveilled by the US government for much of his later life and no one believed him...

"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."

-Earnest Hemingway

Re: Pardon Snowden

#340

Post by JoeAltmaier »

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #338
klausjensen wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not correct. Quote: Asked specifically if he felt like he had exhausted all other avenues before deciding to leak classified information to the public, Snowden responded: Yes. I had reported these clearly problematic programs to more than ten distinct officials, none of whom took any action to address them. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/07...

> That is not correct. It is in fact correct. You have an outdated claim by Snowden which is not supported by any evidence, this year NSA released emails of his 'internal' communications with FOIA and it was discussed (here on HN [0]). As far as documented evidence his only attempt to raise an issue internally was emailing legal counsel regarding a 'test question' - this is laughable. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com…

Got to suggest, emails may not be the way he would communicate concerns. Especially knowing what he did about how email is not private.
Post reply on HN