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

United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 501 posts

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#321

Post by 4ntonius8lock »

txcwpalpha wrote: post #286
4ntonius8lock wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some types of mail are protected by the 4th amendment > The law doesn't see a difference Wow the cognitive dissonance in that is painful to read. Your argument sounds like "Shrodingers cat". It is and isn't at the same time. Ultimately though, it has to collapse into one objective reality ;) > If you send a document through UPS, there is no expectation of privacy. Yeah, again, no. This is directly contradicted by s…

It isn't cognitive dissonance just because you aren't capable of discerning the difference between the types of mail. It is possible (indeed, it is the case) that the law sees no difference between packages and letters while also making a disctinction elsewhere. In this case, the law makes a distinction between sealed mail and unsealed mail, but it does not consider the fact that they are "letters" or "packages" in t…

I'll bite. Where is this distinction? With references please.

You keep saying things that are factually and demonstrably untrue: "if you send a letter through USPS standard mail".... but that isn't how mail works. Standard is for commercial packages. You keep saying things that are easy to see are false.

In fact, I provided sources, including a law called the Mail classification (39 U.S.C. 3623), "The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection"

The whole idea from the beginning: The mail types you are talking about were specifically created to protect 4th amendment privacy protections. It was classed in to categories that were overall: individuals communicating = more protections... non-individuals doing non-correspondence stuff = less protections. (correspondence as understood: the exchange of ideas between people via the written word)

In fact, I gave you a reading where the supreme court specifically said I had an expectation of privacy in my correspondence. I'm still waiting for your evidence that backs up your claim... or for that matter any references or outside sources that verify what you say:

> If you send a letter through USPS standard mail, there is no expectation of privacy

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#322

Post by sneak »

elhudy wrote: post #315
cwkoss wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowdens most fundamental job requirement was to uphold the US constitution. He tried to stop gross constitutional violations from within using the official processes and was ignored. He is the greatest American hero of our era for sacrificing his own freedom to protect the nation. The NSA employees who are 'just following orders' are little better than Nazi footsolders in 1940s Germany. Their continued violation of…

That can be said in regards to leaks pertaining to constitutional violations against US citizens. But how about the unrelated cyber espionage and surveillance leaks which fell into the hands of China, Russia, etc.? There are only a handful of truly knowledgeable parties in the U.S. which can measure how extensive the damage to those affairs was. It's very easy to say there should be no surveillance whatsoever but tha…

Whether or not someone is a citizen of a given country is a completely ridiculous and indefensible attribute to use when making a moral determination about whether or not they deserve privacy. The “US citizens” thing is a red herring; everyone deserves privacy.

Remember that countries are fictions.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#323

Post by eternalny1 »

cwkoss wrote: post #310
elhudy wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowden "...carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest. There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over" What was released (and how), and what we learned are two separate issues. As a U.S. citizen, it's preferable that the subjective legitimacy of what best serves public interest is not in the hands of ON…

Snowdens most fundamental job requirement was to uphold the US constitution. He tried to stop gross constitutional violations from within using the official processes and was ignored. He is the greatest American hero of our era for sacrificing his own freedom to protect the nation. The NSA employees who are 'just following orders' are little better than Nazi footsolders in 1940s Germany. Their continued violation of…

Since this Hacker News, there is actually a glimmer of hope that the NSA guys in TAO and other areas may read these comments.

In that case I would urge them to think about what they are doing, and what Snowden revealed.

SIGINT is important, but showing PowerPoint slides with an image of a virus doing the "happy dance" IS NOT.

That is teenage hacker nonsense, which makes me believe they do not care one iota about what they are doing, outside of that they can.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#324

Post by SkyBelow »

mcny wrote: post #195
SkyBelow wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also the option of ignoring it (piracy vs IP laws) and subverting it (many communities refuse to work with cops and handle justice themselves). These are as illegal as civil disobedience (refusing to work with cops might be more legal in some countries). As to if they are more or less moral... what moral framework are we using to judge?

We all have our own moral compass. I'm pretty sure the Declaration of Independence (1776) was also unlawful as well...

This leaves us at a problem. Legality seems far too poor a standard to judge actions upon outside of court (and sometimes even in court), yet any moral standard is quite subjective to each person. So how do we determine right or wrong? There is a reason this has been an open problem for all of recorded history.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#325

Post by clSTophEjUdRanu »

cmiles74 wrote: post #314
elhudy wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowden "...carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest. There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over" What was released (and how), and what we learned are two separate issues. As a U.S. citizen, it's preferable that the subjective legitimacy of what best serves public interest is not in the hands of ON…

This is what you get when whistleblowers have no protections. If we don't want to see this happen again in the future, the answer is to protect people coming forward with information about abuses.

Whistleblowers do have protections. I was just looking this up the other day- there are proper ways to report this even for matters that deal with classified information. He didn't do that.

https://www.dodig.mil/Components/Administrative-Investigatio...

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#328

Post by eternalny1 »

djsumdog wrote: post #235

I think there is reason to believe that Snowden is a blackops story. A guy making six figures and working remotely in Hawaii as an NSA contractor, somehow extracts tons of critical data and then one day decides he has a moral compass and gives it to reporters at The Guardian and Der Spegiel? Then he goes and hangs out in Russia and his smokin hot girlfriend says she wants to go be with him. We should not be surprised…

Yeah except the programs he unveiled are real, the source code has been leaked to the internet, they have billion dollar budgets and thousands of employees.

But yes, surely it's all fake.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#329

Post by cwkoss »

GVIrish wrote: post #296
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem is that the NSA not only routinely ignores issues raised by whistleblowers, but actively retaliates against them for trying to blow the whistle on illicit activities. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon...

Yes, that was what I was referring to when I said that one probably shouldn't have relied on those protections. However, it doesn't change the fact that he stole a tremendous amount of classified material that had nothing to do with what he felt civil liberties issues. Also doesn't change the fact that the Russian government outright admitted that Snowden shared Intel with them (according to the house Intel committee…

Are you or have you ever been employed by a US intelligence agency?

You seem very skilled at subtly misleading with half-truths. We don't really know what unpublished documents Snowden took, and it is extremely naive to trust the state's allegations. The published info about defense and foreign intelligence was relevant to the American people because it demonstrated that NSA had been lying to congress and our allies. Unchecked violations of our alliances is a grave threat to national security.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#330

Post by mehrdadn »

clSTophEjUdRanu wrote: post #325
cmiles74 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what you get when whistleblowers have no protections. If we don't want to see this happen again in the future, the answer is to protect people coming forward with information about abuses.

Whistleblowers do have protections. I was just looking this up the other day- there are proper ways to report this even for matters that deal with classified information. He didn't do that. https://www.dodig.mil/Components/Administrative-Investigatio...

If you want to know why Snowden did it, and the way he did it, you have to know the stories of two other men.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon...

"The sad reality of today’s policies is that going to the inspector general with evidence of truly serious wrongdoing is often a mistake. Going to the press involves serious risks, but at least you’ve got a chance."

Post reply on HN