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

111–120 of 168 posts

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#111

Post by pdonis »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #110
pdonis wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if we don't know what the government is doing, and we aren't going to be told, how are we supposed to hold them accountable? By voting out of office the elected officials that allowed us not to be told what was going on. The members of the intelligence committees in both houses of Congress are cleared for everything. If they are too incompetent to spot, for example, when an agency director is lying to them (as Snow…

It's not that simple. The members of Congress aren't telling you that they aren't doing proper oversight on Clapper. The NSA isn't telling you that they're exceeding their charter (and the Constitution). So how do you know who to start voting out, if you don't know that there's anything going on for which you should be voting people out?

> how do you know who to start voting out, if you don't know that there's anything going on for which you should be voting people out?

Even if you didn't know it before, you know it now (assuming you think that they should be voted out based on what you know now).

But really, if you didn't know, or at least suspect, what was going on before, why not? This isn't the first time information has leaked about government agencies doing questionable things. As I said, the government is going to do whatever it takes to protect our security and stop terrorist attacks, because that's what we, through our elected representatives, have told them we want. Once you give the government that job, you can't just sit back and assume all is well. Our form of government depends on the constant vigilance of citizens, particularly when we know we've given the government a job that can't be done under Marquess of Queensberry rules.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#112

Post by lolc »

pdonis wrote: post #60
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…

> 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…

We "ordinary citizens" were not informed of the extent of the spying. How were we supposed to hold the governments accountable? They lied. He exposed them. A lot of speculation just vanished and was replaced by certainty. The discussions could move on to what to do about the intrusions instead of arguing over how extensive they are.

With the heavy information asymmetry in this case it's laughable to even talk about accountability. How should accountability be possible when the people in charge lie with impunity?

> 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.

Whatever it takes? At some point it's reasonable to provide to the public evidence of the government's actions. Disregarding any laws. For me, that point was well reached. Snowden was justified in exposing the extensive spying. By all means he chose to use.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#113

Post by pdonis »

lolc wrote: post #112
pdonis wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

We "ordinary citizens" were not informed of the extent of the spying. How were we supposed to hold the governments accountable? They lied. He exposed them. A lot of speculation just vanished and was replaced by certainty. The discussions could move on to what to do about the intrusions instead of arguing over how extensive they are. With the heavy information asymmetry in this case it's laughable to even talk about a…

See my responses to AnimalMuppet downthread.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#114

Post by mindslight »

tptacek wrote: post #22

This is a terrible title, which would be better as "Interview with Edward Snowden". "You can be sure I was pushed" is an aside, and has little of the connotation the title has (that Snowden truly believes he's at risk of being assassinated); rather, it's a tossed-off comment about the fact that he's not suicidal, despite reports that he's been depressed.

Or better yet, "Edward Snowden: 'I'm an indoor cat'"

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#115

Post by boomboomsubban »

seppin wrote: post #61
kamyarg wrote: post #31

> if I had wanted to live a safe life, I would still be sitting in Hawaii in paradise with the woman I love collecting a huge paycheck to do almost no work. Regardless of if he is a hero or villain, he does have integrity. People that sacrifices their safety or lives to help a good cause are the ones I respect the most. I hope he will be able to visit his country safely sometime. p.s. Please fix the title, it is clic…

> Regardless of if he is a hero or villain, he does have integrity. Edward Snowden became an international celebrity because of what he did, and traded a comfortable life in Hawaii for a comfortable life in Moscow. Please don't speak of him in the same vein as, for example, a disappeared Chinese dissident who has actually sacrificed everything for what they believe.

> traded a comfortable life in Hawaii for a comfortable life in Moscow

A comfortable life in Moscow that was never guaranteed beforehand, and could be arbitrarily taken away with no notice. Being fortune enough to end up in a decent situation does not change what he sacrificed.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#116

Post by rapind »

tomc1985 wrote: post #57
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 judic…

I think it's perfectly legitimate to reject a two party system, but I would argue that actively rejecting it w/ a protest write-in is more effective if and when you can.

I have friends who complain about the "system", but have a hard time going into detail on what they claim is busted (even when I agree with them). For them it boils down to laziness and/or apathy. I wish they'd vote like Rhino or w/e to at least make a statement.

I also have a pretty unpopular opinion that voting should be mandatory, much easier to do (time off work), enforced by fine, and that you should be able to write in whatever you want on the ballot rather than vote for a specific candidate (I like ranked voting).

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#117

Post by fulafel »

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…

Working to make the world better involves value judgements and societal change, this is means you are pursuing a political agenda. Unless your definition of political = party politics, which I'd argue is a harmful definition.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#118

Post by ivoras »

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'd argue that everyone has an agenda, and so everyone's political. Us tech people were for the longest time arrogant enough to think we can "get around" the normal political system, e.g. hack it, disrupt it, change it from without.

Facebook is political. Uber is political, Airbnb is political, Google, ...

Hopefully there's going to be some mind shifts. We need to work with the "other side", not around them.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#119

Post by dexen »

shelvacu wrote: post #84
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #33

> Let's assume you could simply poke an icon and all the hidden activity would stop, would you do that? > DER SPIEGEL: Of course. That I think is the crux of the issue - our consent is not real.

No, that doesn't seem quite right. I think the issue is that people don't understand just how valuable their data is. Technically, it's posed as an exchange. People "pay" their data to get these services. People so freely give their data/privacy so much that at this point, it's a required part of using most of humanity's technology. The icon exists, it's called the power button, because if you stop paying, they don't…

>people don't understand just how valuable their data is.

My data isn't valuable. Your data isn't valuable[1]. The data of all HN users is of some value. The data of all Facebook users is highly valuable. But no single FB user has any claim to having valuable data; not even in proportion.

The value is in having a collected, curated, normalized, and cross-tabulated dataset. One that can be queried at scale and with good certainty to accuracy. The value is emergent, a property of the whole graph; it's not merely sum of all the parts nodes[2]. This is one of the reasons "databases" are a separate protected category under IP laws. Come to think of it, the value was created by Facebook, by collecting, managing, and processing the dataset, rather than by users collecting the individual datasets.

We may need a whole separate branch of jurisprudence and legislation, dealing with situations where value (or harm) is an emergent phenomenon in a dense network, not only not attributable directly to any singular node, but also much greater than straightforward sum of nodes' values.

There's a similar (if of destructive value) case for vulnerable "internet of things" / "smart devices". Any singular such device being vulnerable to remote exploit is barely notable. Together, a vast army of vulnerable small "smart devices" easily become a botnet in hands of criminals, with power vastly larger than mere sum of parts. Question arises how to handle responsibility & culpability of vendors (or owners).

--

[1] aside of being directly useful to you.

[2] possible edges = n(n-1)/2, thus value = O(n* *2)

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#120

Post by speedplane »

dexen wrote: post #119
shelvacu wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that doesn't seem quite right. I think the issue is that people don't understand just how valuable their data is. Technically, it's posed as an exchange. People "pay" their data to get these services. People so freely give their data/privacy so much that at this point, it's a required part of using most of humanity's technology. The icon exists, it's called the power button, because if you stop paying, they don't…

>people don't understand just how valuable their data is. My data isn't valuable. Your data isn't valuable[1]. The data of all HN users is of some value. The data of all Facebook users is highly valuable. But no single FB user has any claim to having valuable data; not even in proportion. The value is in having a collected, curated, normalized, and cross-tabulated dataset. One that can be queried at scale and with go…

> We may need a whole separate branch of jurisprudence and legislation, dealing with situations where value (or harm) is an emergent phenomenon in a dense network, not only not attributable directly to any singular node, but also much greater than straightforward sum of nodes' values.

The basic concepts already exist in current jurisprudence, like class actions (many people aggregating together) and punitive damages (damages exceeding cause and effect losses). Don't think these concepts require a sea change, just a modern-day upgrade.

Post reply on HN