Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Interview with Edward Snowden

spiegel.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 168 posts

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#51

Post by mda »

dilippkumar wrote: post #42
jonahbenton wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please consider alternative narratives. He acted selfishly, not morally. Like a startup founder he wanted to disrupt an existing infrastructure, with a one-sided view of the trajectory his impact would have on the domain. Any collateral damage would be easy to hide in the personal narrative memory hole. Deep thoughts and intellectual defenses are not so hard to construct, should not be uncritically accepted with sign…

> Please consider alternative narratives. No. > He acted selfishly, not morally. No, he acted morally. > Deep thoughts and intellectual defenses are not so hard to construct, should not be uncritically accepted with significant corroborating evidence, and should certainly not be taken in any way to imply morality, as shown by the growing list of deep thinkers who supported and participated in Jeffrey Epstein's scheme…

Huh? "No no he is good stop." There are still a lot of unknowns, It is good to leave some room for doubt. Always.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#52

Post by protonfish »

slg wrote: post #18

>The class of which I am a part of, the global technological community, was for the longest time apolitical. We have this history of thinking: "We're going to make the world better." I think a lot of people in the tech community need to come to grips with the fact that you can't be apolitical in a democratic country. Refusing to engage in politics is an abdication of your role in a democratic society. You certainly h…

I think it's even worse than you say. By avoiding politics you tacitly endorse the status quo. You can't opt out - everyone's speech and actions affect the political landscapes no matter how much you would rather pretend that you are above it.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#53

Post by weare138 »

jonahbenton wrote: post #37
marricks wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was kind of surprising at first then I realized it’s because he already thought deeply about everything he’s been asked. After careful deliberation he made a moral choice to leak information at great risk to himself. This makes him not only good to talk through the technical implications of his choices but also moral ones.

Please consider alternative narratives. He acted selfishly, not morally. Like a startup founder he wanted to disrupt an existing infrastructure, with a one-sided view of the trajectory his impact would have on the domain. Any collateral damage would be easy to hide in the personal narrative memory hole. Deep thoughts and intellectual defenses are not so hard to construct, should not be uncritically accepted with sign…

> Please consider alternative narratives.

Why not just consider facts and accept what we know while also accepting that all the facts are not known or possibly can not be known rather than relying on opinionated narratives because it makes for a better story and doesn't require critical thinking?

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#54

Post by philipov »

mda wrote: post #51
dilippkumar wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please consider alternative narratives. No. > He acted selfishly, not morally. No, he acted morally. > Deep thoughts and intellectual defenses are not so hard to construct, should not be uncritically accepted with significant corroborating evidence, and should certainly not be taken in any way to imply morality, as shown by the growing list of deep thinkers who supported and participated in Jeffrey Epstein's scheme…

Huh? "No no he is good stop." There are still a lot of unknowns, It is good to leave some room for doubt. Always.

It's important to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#55

Post by marricks »

jonahbenton wrote: post #37
marricks wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was kind of surprising at first then I realized it’s because he already thought deeply about everything he’s been asked. After careful deliberation he made a moral choice to leak information at great risk to himself. This makes him not only good to talk through the technical implications of his choices but also moral ones.

Please consider alternative narratives. He acted selfishly, not morally. Like a startup founder he wanted to disrupt an existing infrastructure, with a one-sided view of the trajectory his impact would have on the domain. Any collateral damage would be easy to hide in the personal narrative memory hole. Deep thoughts and intellectual defenses are not so hard to construct, should not be uncritically accepted with sign…

I’m pro choice but I can accept the notion someone has a moral objection to abortion. In the same way, even if you disagree with the man, Snowden had a moral objection to surveillance so he did something about it.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#56

Post by [deleted] »

slg wrote: post #18

>The class of which I am a part of, the global technological community, was for the longest time apolitical. We have this history of thinking: "We're going to make the world better." I think a lot of people in the tech community need to come to grips with the fact that you can't be apolitical in a democratic country. Refusing to engage in politics is an abdication of your role in a democratic society. You certainly h…

[deleted]

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#57

Post by tomc1985 »

slg wrote: post #18

>The class of which I am a part of, the global technological community, was for the longest time apolitical. We have this history of thinking: "We're going to make the world better." I think a lot of people in the tech community need to come to grips with the fact that you can't be apolitical in a democratic country. Refusing to engage in politics is an abdication of your role in a democratic society. You certainly h…

This is the sort of "you're either with us or against us" attitude that democracy could do without. The average persons' ability to change anything re: climate change is minimal, especially if the bulk of carbon emissions originate in authoritarian regimes on the other side of the planet.

Would you accuse the Swiss of endorsing the Third Reich on account of their neutrality? Is an impartial judge abdicating his judicial and political responsibilities by refusing to take sides in a case?

As a counterpoint, there are many sides that are worth taking that will never have the kind of popular support they need to make any kind of difference in a democratic society, and the two major political choices (Pub vs Dem, left v right, lib vs conservative) have been so badly confused and crosspolinated that it is difficult to tell them apart. Show me a calm, multiparty democracy with coalition-building as a core tenant and I would gladly join the ranks of political advocates -- but I will NOT be told to pick one shitty side over another.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#58

Post by seppin »

wolco wrote: post #20
seppin wrote: post #5

He's under FSB protection, the only threat on him now is if he violates their rules. edit i'm sorry does HN not like me pointing out their golden boy is a Russian agent? (intel asset under protection)

agent and under protection are two different things.

technically no, an agent is a foreign asset.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#59

Post by slg »

insickness wrote: post #49
slg wrote: post #18

>The class of which I am a part of, the global technological community, was for the longest time apolitical. We have this history of thinking: "We're going to make the world better." I think a lot of people in the tech community need to come to grips with the fact that you can't be apolitical in a democratic country. Refusing to engage in politics is an abdication of your role in a democratic society. You certainly h…

> most people on HN can agree on is climate change. There are many aspects of the climate change issue where disagreement is reasonable. Does industrial progress need to be sacrificed to prevent climate change? How much governmental intervention is helpful? How accurate are predictions of what is coming? What is the most efficient way to prevent climate change and how effective will those actions be? There is no corr…

You are right, I could have phrased that better. We certainly won't all agree on the specific path forward. What I meant was that most people on here can probably agree that our current path is not adequately addressing the problem, that changes need to be made going forward, and those changes require political action.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#60

Post by pdonis »

dilippkumar wrote: post #42
jonahbenton wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please consider alternative narratives. He acted selfishly, not morally. Like a startup founder he wanted to disrupt an existing infrastructure, with a one-sided view of the trajectory his impact would have on the domain. Any collateral damage would be easy to hide in the personal narrative memory hole. Deep thoughts and intellectual defenses are not so hard to construct, should not be uncritically accepted with sign…

> Please consider alternative narratives. No. > He acted selfishly, not morally. No, he acted morally. > Deep thoughts and intellectual defenses are not so hard to construct, should not be uncritically accepted with significant corroborating evidence, and should certainly not be taken in any way to imply morality, as shown by the growing list of deep thinkers who supported and participated in Jeffrey Epstein's scheme…

> No. It's simple. Snowden = Good.

Sure, if you only read his side of the story. Anyone looks good if they get to make up their own narrative about themselves.

The fact is that anyone with half a brain should have known decades ago that the US government, like all governments, does all kinds of surveillance and classifies all kinds of information, and not all of it is going to be pretty. When you tell the government you want it to protect your security and stop terrorist attacks, it's going to do whatever it takes to do that. For Snowden to talk as though he just found all this out when he got access to NSA's super sekrit systems doesn't show that he's good. It just shows that he was ignorant.

Also, while it's perfectly reasonable for ordinary citizens to question what level of surveillance is justified and what kind of information the public should get to see in order to hold the government accountable, it's not reasonable for an individual to just decide on his own that it's OK to violate the law and the agreements he signed up to when he got his security clearance. That is exactly the kind of personal hubris and lack of accountability that we are trying to stop in people who have privileged access to government secrets. We have processes for holding our government accountable: we have FOIA requests, we have lawsuits, and ultimately we have elections. Those processes don't always work well, but that doesn't mean it's ok for one person to arrogate to himself the right to bypass them all.

Post reply on HN