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

631–640 of 814 posts

Re: Pardon Snowden

#631

Post by BinaryIdiot »

__jal wrote: post #621
Inlinked wrote: post #512

To pardon Snowden seems like a very popular opinion around here. Can anyone help me change my opinion on this matter? The way I currently see it: - Snowden indiscriminately hovered up so many documents, it was impossible to vet all of them. - The vast majority of these documents do not constitute whistleblowing, but are standard operating procedure for the NSA. The US expects the NSA to do this. - Leaking standard-op…

My goodness, this reads like Stewart Baker is sock-puppeting. If you'd like to convince someone, perhaps sticking to the truth when stating "facts" would be a start. For instance, > - Snowden did not attempt to go through internal channels. is simply false. > - Snowden fled to Russia, a currently not-so-cold competitor of the US. Nice innuendo. Please state your concerns in a concrete fashion. If it is that he fled,…

You ask for parent to provide proof in some places but don't provide it yourself which makes me think you're more interested in arguing versus being productive (which, to be fair, some of parent's points sound like they're coming from a similar place). But just in case I have a few questions

>> - Snowden did not attempt to go through internal channels.

> is simply false.

As far as I was ever able to find Snowden emailed "district heads". That was the only internal channel he went through that I could find. Considering the NSA and the DoD in general each have channels to go through along with far, far more appropriate people to email / call about it (district heads is something you basically never hear about in the intel space; they're not useful at getting anything done) I would also say he did not go through internal channels.

If you have proof outside of this I'd love to read it.

> If it is that he fled, then it doesn't matter to where.

Why does it not? He had a very, very large corpus of classified intelligence that any enemy of the United States would love to get their hands on. Granted he had little choice once he got to China but I don't understand the claim that it doesn't matter where he went considering the payload he was carrying.

> You elide the difference between taking documents and releasing them. As others have said, vetting was done by journalists.

I'm not sure I would consider that vetting. Regardless a large corpus of classified and likely damaging data was taken, carried and given to multiple parties. A vetting prior to documents being indiscriminately taken would have been far more responsible though the considerable time that would have taken would have made leaking impossible in the first place.

I wouldn't be so quick so side with every single thing Snowden did to avoid being cast as a zealot.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#632

Post by kristopolous »

BFatts wrote: post #539

I don't think he should be pardoned. He claims that it's because he helped the public see the sinister plot of our government and their internal spying. Ok, fine. So, should we have pardoned Jack Ruby (if he were alive) for killing the guy that killed JFK? No. Why does Snowden deserve any different treatment. He still release confidential information. It's not like what he did can just excuse that fact. He exposed US…

In this case, people were knowingly breaking the law and stamping "confidential" on the evidence.

You can't just go about breaking any law and cover your tracks by labeling it with something you paid $4.99 for on vistaprint ... what an absurd position to defend.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#633

Post by atmosx »

kyledrake wrote: post #292
jellicle wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. border security has been monitoring social media for years. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093796/Emily-Buntin... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/28/us-custom...

Yeah, if you post threats on your Twitter account immediately before visiting a country that could be an issue. So don't do that. Threats against persons or property are reasonable things for public officials to be concerned about. I repeat: you're not going to get dragged off to US prison for following Birgitta Jónsdóttir on Twitter. I strongly agree that Ed should be pardoned and that the US government has a lot of…

If I had the slightest hint that I will be prosecuted or go to prison,I would never risk traveling in the US. I am not a person of interest by any means for any gov.

I was referring to a possible detention in the borders, stripping, electronic devices control and so forth.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#634

Post by smsm42 »

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 wonder if I (a US citizen) might get trouble the next time at the border?

I would be hugely surprised to learn that anybody would spend any time or attention to whoever votes how on a petition. There are thousands of those and only so many border agents, and making trouble to an US citizen carries a non-zero risk. Your profile is too low for that.

> Or get a higher score in some database, that combined with other things might get me into trouble?

Possible, but other things should be like donating to known ISIS front or frequenting a Hezbollah darksite, or something like that. Otherwise it's just noise.

> Increased scrutiny from the IRS

Unlikely, IRS is interested in money, not online petitions. You'd need to do something more spectacular to deserve special scrutiny, that puts you out of the crowd. Voting on online petition puts you in the crowd.

> but "they" might say hell why not?

Customized treatment on these scales is rather expensive. If voting on online petition had triggered customized treatment, they'd have to do a lot of useless "increased scrutiny". If they did, you won't be different from millions of people, but most probably they don't.

> Inability to get security clearances in future?

Security clearance is one area where such scrutiny could be warranted. But given who gets clearances, at least at low levels (like terror operatives working at airports and security companies, etc.) not likely unless we're talking about very high clearance levels.

> Being targeted for more intense data collection by the NSA?

Unlikely, again, you'd have to get out of the noise level for that and voting on a petition does not do that. If you'd be a close personal friend of Snowden then it'd be a different thing...

If Snowden revealed something is that the NSA and accompanied services are very smart, very powerful and very resourceful in achieving their goals. Nothing suggests they are so stupid as being unable to distinguish between signal and noise. They may be collecting a lot, but it all would be useless if they couldn't distinguish between interesting things and noise. Signing an online petition is noise.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#635

Post by joe563323 »

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 might be a risk. But if you do not act the risk is much higher. I am not talking about social good or sacrifice. Just think about the state in which your children's and their children's will live in. It is not worth living in a state like that. Its like we are being prepared for breeding future slaves.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#636

Post by rayvd »

Seeing mostly downvotes for those not in agreement with the herd.

I, too, do not support a pardon. He should stand trial, and if he in fact broke laws should pay the penalty. I wouldn't want to set a legal precedent that it's OK to join one of our intelligence agencies and leak information.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#637

Post by sqeaky »

dev1n wrote: post #480
hota_mazi wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This chilling effect has a counterpart which would be directly amplified by pardoning Snowden. In short, if Snowden gets pardoned, it will encourage further people to leak confidential documents and violate the Espionage act since they will be emboldened by the thought they might get pardoned down the road.

This is not true. Snowden had to fly to Russia and live there for three years before a hypothetical pardon. If that is the minimum for the possibility of a pardon, I don't think many people would find that emboldening.

The other leakers, the ones without great plans, have much weaker media followings.

Those potential leakers might be emboldened, but I doubt many would get away with it. There is also a great deal to be said for Snowden being right.

If the President pardoned him while denouncing other named leakers (Manning, et al), and highlighting that Snowden was the only one protecting the constitution. Then perhaps only the leakers strongly backed by the constitution would be emboldened.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#638

Post by bleair »

Is this petition being championed by the ACLU?

Would donating to the ACLU be more effective in affecting real pressure?

Just like subscribing to Linux Journal, or running a tor node, if you sign this petition your information will end up on a list of "person to keep tabs on".

Re: Pardon Snowden

#639

Post by smsm42 »

exhilaration wrote: post #481
1024core wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will sign the petition and if some asshole gives me trouble at the border for it, so what? I'm a US citizen and entitled to re-enter my country. F them. I posted this reply earlier too, but figured I'd respond here also. The US government has, in the past, refused entry to US citizens. They do this not at the border, but at the foreign airport. Say you fly to Germany, and then try to come back. They'll tell the a…

That's exactly right, here's a real-world example: But the worst cases are those like Long's: when the person is suddenly barred from flying when they are outside of the US, often on the other side of the world. As a practical matter, that government act effectively exiles them from their own country. "Obviously, I can't get to Oklahoma from Qatar if I can't fly," said Long. "Trying to take a boat would take weeks aw…

This is most probably because no-fly list is a pile of steaming crap, they had Senators, Congressmen, military veterans, toddlers, etc. on the list. 99.99% it has nothing to do with this specific person (though of course not being a Senator, but being a Muslim from Qatar doesn't exactly help). It's not targeting, it's the opposite.

I'm not sure though why he couldn't fly to Mexico instead - is DHS no-fly list mandatory for other countries?

Re: Pardon Snowden

#640

Post by raldu »

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…

Asking, "Will the government persecute me if I democratically voice my opinion against a crime executed by the same government?", is exactly the type of questioning that should be avoided.

It is same as asking, "Will the mafia kill me if I speak the truth about the murder as an eyewitness?" Government is not supposed to operate like a mafia. (But sure they can violate Human Rights and the Constitution, and public will not even care.)

However, I am afraid by asking that very question we are already talking from within the context of a regime that is "totalitarian". The various degrees to which an average US citizen believes that they are not in a totalitarian country unlike those "other" "socialist" or whatever countries out there, is irrelevant:

Surveillance is Totalitarianism.

It is no surprise for people get paranoid in a country with large-scale surveillance technology. And that's the point. Because it has never been merely about the "terrorists" who are "out there"...

For people who are concerned about getting a "high score" in whatever threat inventory, we are all a threat already. That's the very basic rationale behind mass-surveillance. For the record, a majority of HN members would hypothetically get pretty "high scores"...

Back to the topic of the thread, Obama will not pardon Snowden.

Post reply on HN