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

421–430 of 814 posts

Re: Pardon Snowden

#421

Post by mangeletti »

akgerber wrote: post #386
mangeletti wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If socialism isn't authoritarian, that means that people can opt out of social benefits, own their own property and things, and not have to pay taxes to cover others' social benefits, right? Without going to jail, right? If not, then I guess we're talking about some form of authoritarianism. To talk about "socialism" in a sense that doesn't break the non-aggression principle (necessary for non-authoritarianism), you…

If capitalism isn't authoritarian, that means people can opt out of state application of property rights to land, right? Without going to jail or getting shot, right?

Did you mean to reply to a different comment? I didn't make any claims about capitalism or even mention it.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#422

Post by wildmusings »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #374
wildmusings wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're simply wrong. FISA courts exist because Congress created them and gave them jurisdiction. There is no such thing as a secret conviction under US law. There is no such thing as a secret criminal trial, where the accused has no opportunity to defend themselves, under US law. Does not exist period.

Just like there's no such thing as domestic mass surveillance under US law? And who said he was tried in our criminal court system? If it's a matter of "national security" all due process flies out the window. My point is there is literally no way for you to know and claiming people are wrong and dismissing them with "tin foil" arguments is shitty.

Just because you don't understand why it's not possible, doesn't mean that it is. A US citizen cannot be imprisoned without due process or being found in contempt of court (and in that case, only until the moment they comply with the court order). This is a basic premise of shelves upon shelves worth of Supreme Court decisions, and is guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Even without those amendments, what you suggest is not possible because Congress has passed no law establishing a body with the authority to imprison people in such a matter. And even then, only "Article III tribunals" (i.e. federal courts) have the authority to deprive civilians of liberty under federal law. "Article I tribunals" only have limited authority to decide civil matters, and to hear court-martials of servicemen.

You're also making totally false claims like:

>If it's a matter of "national security" all due process flies out the window.

There are multiple recent Supreme Court decisions directly contradicting that. For example, and very relevant to this exact discussion, the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Further, given that Snowden is not a combatant in any armed forces or insurgent group, he is not subject to any military jurisdiction. He can only be tried in US federal courts.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#423

Post by icecold12741 »

eternalban wrote: post #350
jordanlev wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point? Regardless of the personalities involved, I don't think anyone has refuted the facts of the leaked documents. Yes, humans are human and nobody is a perfect angel or robot ... but what does that have to do with the facts of what was released?

Let's review the leak: * NSA spies on foreign governments. Isn't that their job? * NSA spies on Americans, & has compromised infrastructure. Your first assumption here is that the ruling elite won't want you to know that. Have you ever considered they wanted you to know without official acknowledgement? Go find an oldhand AT&T geek and ask them about the telephony and NSA. > Regardless of the personalities involved Y…

Another point to be made is that while they say that "much has changed due to his actions" not all has been positive. Several court cases came out after this affirming the idea that you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" for any internet-facing machine. In fact, the District Court in Virginia this month said that the FBI had the legal right to install malware on the computer of someone who visited a child pornography site. The ruling basically stated that in the modern era of technology, the general consensus is that no public-facing technology is safe from exploitation, so by using it (it being a computer), he acknowledged the risk that everything he did would be made available for observation from a 3rd party (whether a company or the government).

Google won a case a few years ago to the same effect. They were sued for scanning a private business' e-mail traffic and using it to target advertising. That court also ruled that if it was unencrypted communication, moving across "public" lines, then it was fair game for anyone who could intercept it.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#424

Post by JustSomeNobody »

allendoerfer wrote: post #352
lettergram wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I really like the idea of the small state. Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. Children have rights and when parents do not protect these rights, the state has to. There is a hierarchy of rights. The right of the child to be healthy is greater than the right of the parent to ignore scientific evidence.

Very well said.

(I know we're supposed to avoid comments like mine, but this one needed it.)

Re: Pardon Snowden

#425

Post by bayesian_horse »

ygjb wrote: post #401
bayesian_horse wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much about mass surveillance but rather things like the TSA and stupid immigration policies which are at play here. Really, spotting your name on a petition isn't mass surveillance. It's not even a breach of privacy in any sense, because that's exactly what petitions are for.

> Really, spotting your name on a petition isn't mass surveillance. No. The goal of a petition is to show support for a course of action, and in this context, exercising freedom of speech in a democracy. Taking the list of people who signed a petition, assigning a "risk score" to them because of their activism, storing it in a database for the future, and using that as a means to make decisions that affect those indi…

Even taking that list and using it to discredit people isn't mass surveillance, it may just be mean, or stupid or even evil.

On the other hand, if I research someone for a position, I would rather not like to see their name on a petition for certain things. It always was this way. You just had to look harder for this information.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#426

Post by Taek »

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…

When you start to feel that way is when you need to stand up the most. We get further into this mess by staying silent out of fear and we get out of it by being millions strong and protesting the state of things.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#427

Post by Taek »

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…

When you start to feel that way is when you need to stand up the most. We get further into this mess by staying silent out of fear and we get out of it by being millions strong and protesting the state of things.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#428

Post by wildmusings »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #370
wildmusings wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy rights for foreigners do not exist under US law. The US cannot allow people with security clearances to just ignore the law, determine what is right and wrong, and take matters into their own hands. How our government treats people in other countries is a matter for the President and Congress, the elected representatives of the American people.

Basic rights for a lot of people, even our own citizens, do not exist under US law. Even our own prisoners are denied pretty basic rights (solitary confinement for literally years at a time, sometimes over a decade). Felons who have served their time are denied basic rights (voting) in some states. People have spent over a decade in prison without any sort of due process (from contempt of court, being ordered to do s…

You're totally misunderstanding the whistleblowing system. It exists to uncover activity that is illegal under US law, not for people to make moral statements about what the law should be. What the law should be is a matter for our elected representatives.

I'm not sure what your point about contempt of court is. Yes, of course you can be held indefinitely until you comply with a court order. Otherwise, a court order wouldn't mean anything.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#429

Post by __jal »

mangeletti wrote: post #376
paulintrognon wrote: post #64

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

If socialism isn't authoritarian, that means that people can opt out of social benefits, own their own property and things, and not have to pay taxes to cover others' social benefits, right? Without going to jail, right? If not, then I guess we're talking about some form of authoritarianism. To talk about "socialism" in a sense that doesn't break the non-aggression principle (necessary for non-authoritarianism), you…

Fine.

In which case every nation on earth is authoritarian, and the word has no more useful meaning when discussing governments than the observation that governments attempt to maintain a monopoly on use of force. Both are universal. Doesn't matter if you're suppressing fraud in a balls-out capital-dominated economy or offering healthcare in more mild social democracies, someone disagrees and the jackboots come out.

So now we've established that capitalism (the real thing, mostly practiced by large cartels), "capitalism" (the U.S. mixed economy), socialism (I'm not stepping in that one) and "socialism" (the mixed economies of western Europe) are all authoritarian. Can we move past this boring, useless debate point, please?

Re: Pardon Snowden

#430

Post by Sgt_Apone »

tomaskafka wrote: post #420
AsyncAwait wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A mode of thought I would expect in socialist countries, not the US... It's ironic that given all the valid concerns in your post, you also fell for the oldest piece of propaganda in the book by the very government you're concerned about and that you think that socialism has something to do with dictatorships, rather than it being just an idea that itself has nothing to do with dictatorships in itself, but was in t…

Nazi and socialist ideology is quite close. After all, the S in NSDAP stands for Socialist, and they targeted same voters.

This is bad history. The Nazis who emerged in power had no ties to socialism. By this logic, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a purely democratically run country.
Post reply on HN