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

661–670 of 814 posts

Re: Pardon Snowden

#661

Post by smsm42 »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #595
krschultz wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which country would you suggest is the most free today? Not trolling, just wondering if I was going to move somewhere else, where would I go?

The previous poster was correct - it depends on what sort of things will make you, personally, feel free. I wound up in Norway, and find a certain freedom here. I don't mind the taxes and such, and I rather enjoy the general equality in opportunity sort of thing. I'm no longer worried that blue hair makes me un-hireable (though it might make it harder to find work). But other Americans here simply hate it and can't w…

> I'm no longer worried that blue hair makes me un-hireable

This is also absolutely true in US. Of course, that differs whether you're trying to be a graphic designer or a banker or a trial lawyer. Blue-haired trial lawyer probably would raise more eyebrows.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#662

Post by wry_discontent »

yodsanklai wrote: post #582
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noam Chomsky talks a lot about "Manufacturing Consent" (he wrote a book with this title). He says that in a democratic society you can't use force to control people, so you have to control them by controlling attitudes an opinions instead. It works well, and the people of the United States are heavily controlled by the elite, who in this case are the corporations and the media companies they control. https://www.yout…

I tend to agree with Chomsky's views, but sometimes I feel he's too extreme and that makes him lose credibility. Maybe it's my misunderstanding, but he often sounds like there is a bunch of people, "the elite" that plan together how they are going to control the rest of the world. I see this instead as a natural, non-coordinated phenomenon caused by various powerful people trying to serve their self-interests.

If you read more of what he says, you'll find Chomsky says exactly this.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#663

Post by greyman »

ionised wrote: post #145
Tepix wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Snowden agrees that surveillance is necessary. However it is done outside of the public's eye and as we have seen without legal authorization. That's the part that made him blow the whistle. Mass surveillance is deeply contrarian to our core values as a democratic society. If it is to happen there needs to be a discussion and a public decision. That's exactly what is set into motion by the Snowden revelations.

He agreed that targeted surveillance is necessary (I do too), not this indiscriminate 'collect it all' bulk surveillance of entire populations that we have now.

I think targeted surveillance is not enough - if you find a suspect, I think you need to take the bulk surveillance data and look at what that person communicated in the past and whether he is indeed a suspect, not just watch him only from this point on.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#664

Post by greyman »

themartorana wrote: post #180
greyman wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then there are people like me, who don't see the situation as black&white, i.e. I am not signing that petition. In my opinion, for the sake of security, it is necessary to "cache" the whole Internet communication to prevent terrorists attacks and other dangers. Like what the Brits are doing and currently they didn't have any big attack after the London bombings. I am not an American and I don't have a motivation…

"...they didn't have any big attack..." "Big attacks" are vanishingly rare. But, just for the sake of argument, they haven't had an attack until they do. The point of this is the US is actually harvesting way more data than the U.K., and we have so-called "lone wolf" attacks every couple of months. Mass surveillance doesn't keep you safe.

I am in Europe and... they aren't that rare in France or Germany for example.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#665

Post by pbarnes_1 »

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…

Uhm... Bernie Sanders signed this. I think you'll be okay.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#666

Post by pbarnes_1 »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #315
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…

> 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…

Most Americans have no idea that socialism != communism.

The latter meaning is mostly used when referring to the former. But this is only kind of interesting if you're not American. :)

Re: Pardon Snowden

#667

Post by pbarnes_1 »

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.

There are a lot of "republics" and "democratic" parties around the world that are anything but.

It's called branding.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#668

Post by lisper »

smsm42 wrote: post #657
lisper wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want freedom from government interference in your life, Somalia is still a pretty good bet. And no, I am not being facetious. People like to think of freedom as a scalar, but it's actually a vector with complex interactions among its various dimensions, one of which is the government. That said, I am absolutely signing the petition. Ed Snowden put a lot more on the line by blowing the whistle than I am by sign…

The question is not "most free from government", but "most free". It's like answering the question about which restaurant is most sanitary by suggesting to eat nothing at all - of course, you'll starve to death but at least no chance for food poisoning! And you're wrong about Somalia btw: they do have a government, which collects taxes, introduces regulations and does all good government supposed to do, including cor…

You're right, the halcyon days of the 1990's, after the complete collapse of the Somali government, do seem to be drawing to a close. You might try Yemen or South Sudan.

Re: Pardon Snowden

#669

Post by wooter »

hota_mazi wrote: post #656
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people are emboldened to blow the whistle on outrageous, secret, unconstitutional, anti-democratic activities of the US or state governments, then this is the best possible outcome.

Yes but you're being a bit naïve here. Things never really go like this. Snowden didn't just blow the whistle on some shady activities, he dumped hundreds of confidential documents that put at risk the lives of hundreds of operatives working for your freedom and others'.

define "dumped." He tried internal channels, which unsurprisingly failed (as several legitimate whistle-blowers and even just employees have expressed) and then went to well-reputed journalists in the most professional, transparent, and safe way possible. They even leaked redacted materials slowly to emphasize this.

So: Why did you use the word "dumped" and can you explain explicitly what he did wrong?

Re: Pardon Snowden

#670

Post by wooter »

mthoms wrote: post #601
BFatts wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, if people emboldened to get their 5 minutes of fame for releasing some really juicy confidential or top secret info that has nothing to do with [your list here], this is the WORST possible outcome.

In theory, that's what impartial courts are supposed to be for. To make fair judgements on the specifics of each case. If the public interest and the principles of freedom were served by the leak, then that should be treated very different than a purely self-serving (or dangerous) leak.

Seriously. I feel the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" has just been thrown out the window. Parent comment is literally advocating "guilty even if you're innocent because someone else might potentially be convinced to commit a crime in the future"
Post reply on HN