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

121–130 of 168 posts

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#121

Post by cousin_it »

deanCommie wrote: post #88
forgingahead wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop this. You're just buying into the false narrative, pushed specifically by media companies, that "you can't disengage". This specifically serves their purpose of creating content for the sake of conflict, in order to make money off your attention. You can disengage. In fact, I highly encourage it, and one's mental health greatly benefits from it. You're not more "enlightened" or "wise" if you follow along…

That is a highly privileged position from someone who benefits from the current system, or at the very least isn't actively harmed by it. I realize I know nothing about your station, but understand that being able to make that statement is inherently privileged, and one millions of people around the world cannot proclaim. If you have access to benefits and advantages in the system that others do not, then if you are…

Things were achieved by blood for millennia, and not much got better. But after a couple centuries of technological growth and free exchange, things are better. The person you're replying to doesn't "disengage and offer nothing", they participate in technological growth and free exchange, for which you declare them complicit and call for blood.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#122

Post by dTal »

cypherpunks01 wrote: post #4

I do wonder which specific philosophical objection to suicide Snowden ascribes to?

If I had to guess, given his character, I would hazard something along the lines of "if you have the opportunity to make the world a better place, then you have the moral obligation to". If he were in a position where he wanted to commit suicide, it would be the "easy way out" - analogous to continuing his easy life in Hawaii, instead of throwing it all away out of duty.

Of course one can contrive scenarios where suicide is "the right thing to do", but I doubt Snowden expects to find himself in such a situation.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#123

Post by Barrin92 »

forgingahead wrote: post #70
tomc1985 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's a pity to see the downvotes you're getting for a very reasonable comment. This is exactly the problem with the original parent comment, "you're with us or against us". Zealotry for political issues is still zealotry, and has no place in a civil society. It's a shame if the HN zeitgeist has really turned into that.

this sounds like a strawman. The OP was asking for a politically engaged citizenry, not "zealots". The status quo in many democratic countries is apathy in large segments of the population and not even conscious abstention.

the message of the original post was that democratic citizens need to recognise that duties and freedoms come together, that the latter don't exist without the former. Many people appear to take their rights for granted.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#124

Post by PavlovsCat »

forgingahead wrote: post #68
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…

Please stop this. You're just buying into the false narrative, pushed specifically by media companies, that "you can't disengage". This specifically serves their purpose of creating content for the sake of conflict, in order to make money off your attention. You can disengage. In fact, I highly encourage it, and one's mental health greatly benefits from it. You're not more "enlightened" or "wise" if you follow along…

> You're just buying into the false narrative, pushed specifically by media companies, that "you can't disengage". This specifically serves their purpose of creating content for the sake of conflict, in order to make money off your attention.

Making money off it is just one effect, the other is distraction from serious and important things. To just disengage from them and "let other people handle it" achieves the same.

> But please don't force the rest of us to tag along.

By saying people are evading their responsibilities?

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#126

Post by lern_too_spel »

cryptonector wrote: post #89
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…

> 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 [...] Before Snowden you could say that TLAs were surely reading everything, but no one took that seriously -- "what a tinfoil hatter" might have been their internal response. After Snowden we all know that TLAs are reading everything. > Also, while it's perfectly reas…

> After Snowden we all know that TLAs are reading everything.

No, we don't. According to the documents Snowden released, none of the TLAs in the US are reading everything. What we do know now is that China has a list of compromised systems because Snowden gave it to them.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#127

Post by lern_too_spel »

josho wrote: post #50
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…

> He acted selfishly Risking imprisonment isn’t exactly what I’d call a selfish act. How do you see his action as selfish. He’s lost so much. And what corroboration do you feel is necessary. Snowden simply leaked documents. The government hasn’t contradicted that.

> Risking imprisonment isn’t exactly what I’d call a selfish act.

Immediately giving lists of compromised systems to China in an attempt to gain asylum in Hong Kong is a selfish act.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#128

Post by lern_too_spel »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #115
seppin wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

He thought he was going to get a comfortable life in Hong Kong by leaking lists of compromised systems to China. That China laughed him out of the country after receiving the documents does not change what he thought his trade was.

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#129

Post by jdance »

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.

I dont actually think people would poke the icon :) they like the trade, which is weird, but psychology is weird sometimes. I asked my friend if it bothers him that his google home device sends all sound in his home to google, and he replied ”no, I have nothing to hide”. Well I never claimed that he had? If he did it would be even more stupid. I think he secretly likes that google listens, for some strange reason. Being spied upon gives some strange sense of being connected, of not being alone, perhaps? Its scary not to be a part of the system. People like having their choices made for them and all that. Nothing new! Consciousness is growing so I think this will change in the long run but its a very slow process

Re: Interview with Edward Snowden

#130

Post by pier25 »

josho wrote: post #101
pier25 wrote: post #11

Of course the US would not push him through a window but someone that wanted to damage the US international image might...

If you read American history there are all kinds of shady things that the CIA have done. You might be surprised to learn the lengths they will take to protect American interests.

Maybe it wasn't clear from my comment.

My point was not that the US/CIA don't "push people out of windows" but that they wouldn't do it because Snowden is such a public figure.

Post reply on HN