201–210 of 300 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We don't need a Rosetta Stone for it. Trump means exactly what he says. Policy disagreements with Trump aside, I find that actually kind of refreshing.
It would be if he wasn't a demented narcissist. His inability to ignore even the smallest trifle that casts him in negative light shows the extent of his mental illness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type filesHe was a Sharepoint admin with access to Office type files. I wish he were a participant on HN so he could chime in here and defend himself. My impression is that he held several jobs over a few years which gave him access to more of the breadth of what was going on. Surely after the revelations more security checks would have been implemented. But the other…
> My impression is that he held several jobs over a few years which gave him access to more of the breadth of what was going on. This is your impression because it's the impression people want you to have.
Well, putting aside the observation that the documents speak for themselves, and ignoring the inaccurate claims made by leaders to the American people about surveillance, what impression should I have?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What do you make of Snowden's assertion that he could have eavesdropped on anyone he wanted? Was he failing to mention that his actions could be audited? Was he failing to mention that he had access to someone else's PKI with which to do the surveillance? Other? I think he was not really telling the truth. And I don't mean that he intended to be dishonest, but rather, he was trying to explain the issue as he unders…
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I wish Snowden were a participant on HN so he could address the specific detail points. One recent historical point I'd mention based on your reasoning is that there was a period of time toward the end of Obama's presidency when there was immense political pressure on him to "do something" about Russia meddling in the US election to benefit Trump. It seems plausible that since O…
However, Obama was under intense pressure not to appear to be acting politically.
My opinion on hn was unpopular when I spoke out against Apple during the San Bernardino affair, because the FBI seemed to have the proper DOJ signoff and I think the motivation was obvious. However this is unacceptable. We are a society of laws, and one of them is due process. Spying likely started during the Bush years, and Obama somehow escaped scrutiny for continuing the program (even with Snowden leaks). Hopefull…
Spying likely started during the Bush years It got worse during the Bush administration, but government surveillance isn't a new thing. Hopefully it finally gets shut down during the Trump administration Not sure if serious
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Additionally, I'm not so sure my reply is that great of a defense, I am only stating facts because I do not believe that spreading misconceptions is very helpful to discussion on this kind of topic. This is an interesting point. Over the past few years I've come to think that the most responsible perspective to adopt as a citizen is that officials and government are all, to some extent, bad actors who deserve a goo…
> The biggest breakdown in the democratic process has been a lack of appreciation on the part of the public for all that we consent to by not actively dissenting and demanding answers and accountability. I agree. I don't intend to defend anything problematic. I just worry that it will be hard to demand actual changes if people are concerned about vague issues driven by a misunderstanding of how things work, versus ac…
I'm less concerned with Snowden's treatment than with the way that our leaders dealt with the revelation that crimes had been committed in the excessive collection of data.
In my opinion, at least a few senior intelligence officials should have faced prison time, several more should have stepped down, and we should have seen full details disclosed about the problematic programs and seen the technology infrastructure get dismantled.
But we saw nothing like this. President Obama pretended nothing had happened and things just continued on pretty much the way they had been.
The key point is that the surveillance programs Snowden revealed are illegal, criminal programs and there is zero accountability for those whose misdeeds and lies led to the programs.
While I have no doubt that the vast majority of intelligence agency employees are honest, law-abiding people, I am not comfortable with a massive surveillance system being built behind closed doors with no democratic oversight. The stakes are just too high.
I have a number of friends who work in government and I wonder whether they feel comfortable expressing their honest opinions about the programs since for all we know there is a sentiment analysis being done on the emails, tweets, texts, and phone conversations of all government employees with security clearance.
From the standpoint of preventing crimes by leveraging surveillance and data mining, of course there would be a sentiment analysis system, and the threat level posed by dissenting sentiment would be easy to monitor so that measures could be taken to prevent undesirable occurrences from happening.
Can a democracy exist when there is a massive surveillance system that everyone realizes is lurking behind every web cam and ISP? I'm not sure it can.
We've seen a handful of generals and public officials get destroyed by "leaks" of data that were quite likely obtained via the surveillance infrastructure. This should probably terrify us, but there is very little scrutiny of the methods used, including parallel attribution, and most government claims are taken at face value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why place any weight on Trump's wiretap claim? He was one of the loudest voices in the "birther" movement. That he's now president doesn't mean his self-serving crackpot conspiracy theories suddenly deserve credit.
Let me first say that I don't particularly care if Obama was born outside of the US. George Washington, perhaps our greatest president, was obviously an immigrant of sorts. Let me also say that I don't believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama wasn't born in America, as there are several other reasons for faking a birth certificate; perhaps the original has been lost and you've decided that it's worth doing in ord…
While this article offers the clearest presentation of the issue I've seen to date, I think the key point (which the article points out halfway in) is that the truth of Trump's claim that he was wiretapped does not depend on the presence or absence of a FISA warrant. The system is designed to be used without warrant, so those harping on the detail of whether or not a warrant existed that had Trump in scope are not fo…
I mean, now there's just enough "justification" to conclude that the illegal wiretap may have been done outside of any traceable process--just as you have done. So, Trump just may be right. How do we know?
There is an over-emphasis on what's possible vs. what the actual evidence says. That is the path to a post fact world wherein literally any conspiracy theory can now thrive. At the end of this path lies the complete obliteration of democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I wish Snowden were a participant on HN so he could address the specific detail points. One recent historical point I'd mention based on your reasoning is that there was a period of time toward the end of Obama's presidency when there was immense political pressure on him to "do something" about Russia meddling in the US election to benefit Trump. It seems plausible that since O…
I think the pressure operated in reverse. That is, under normal circumstances, the election meddling, the associate connections, the pro-Russia rhetoric, etc. naturally warranted an investigation/response as a matter of national security. No pressure would be required. Likewise, public revelations about some of this stuff (in particular, the attack on our democracy) clearly could not go unchecked, thus warranting the…
Only to the extent that is typically the sitting president's responsibility to jump on board with the campaign rhetoric of his/her own party. The accusations about Russia put Obama in a delicate spot. If there had been evidence, his decision would have been easy, but in the absence of evidence he faced accusations of stoking fears about Russia to benefit his party.
But I think the line was crossed in the other direction when he imposed sanctions and evicted diplomats. For a president to do that weeks before a new administration takes over is abundantly petty and ought only be done if the new administration approves of it.
Doing so was far beneath Obama, and was akin to leaving an unflushed bowel movement in the oval office bathroom so Trump would find it on his first day. Obama did it only because he was under great pressure from his party to do so.
While this article offers the clearest presentation of the issue I've seen to date, I think the key point (which the article points out halfway in) is that the truth of Trump's claim that he was wiretapped does not depend on the presence or absence of a FISA warrant. The system is designed to be used without warrant, so those harping on the detail of whether or not a warrant existed that had Trump in scope are not fo…
Why place any weight on Trump's wiretap claim? He was one of the loudest voices in the "birther" movement. That he's now president doesn't mean his self-serving crackpot conspiracy theories suddenly deserve credit.