Live data from Hacker News

Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

datacenterdynamics.com

41–50 of 141 posts

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#41
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one thing that Snowden mentions in his book. You cannot have a fair trial if you are an whistleblower, since that would include revealing/acknowledging the existence of such programs, thing they don't want to do.

Being a whistleblower is not a crime. Whistleblowing is regulated by law. Government agencies have internal processes for people who want to blow the whistle on conduct they may deem illegal or unethical, and it is perfectly safe to do so. Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. He broke into computer systems he did not have the right to access…

> programs that were in no way illegal, or unconstitutional

I noticed you didn't say unethical.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#42
post #2

Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requiring harmful disclosur…

I read that quote as Ellis siding with El-Masri (notwithstanding that he still ruled invocation of state secrets as valid) - how do you read it?

I read it the same way, and I don't see how one would read it any other way? Removing the qualifiers -

"If El-Masri's allegations are true [..], then all fair-minded people[..], must also agree that El-Masri has suffered injuries as a result of our country's mistake and deserves a remedy."

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#43
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one thing that Snowden mentions in his book. You cannot have a fair trial if you are an whistleblower, since that would include revealing/acknowledging the existence of such programs, thing they don't want to do.

Being a whistleblower is not a crime. Whistleblowing is regulated by law. Government agencies have internal processes for people who want to blow the whistle on conduct they may deem illegal or unethical, and it is perfectly safe to do so. Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. He broke into computer systems he did not have the right to access…

> Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution.

I'm not sure why you're so trusting of the government that is openly admitting they are unwilling to release their secrets, and not only that but the court system is designed to protect this. From what I heard, he tried to go through the proper channels, and was rebuffed. So it's his word against the government, when we already have substantial evidence of the government lying about surveillance programs time and time again.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should the plans for atomic weapons be available to anyone?

Why not? What are you going to do with them? It requires nation-state level resources to even attempt to build them. Even states dedicated to developing them against the wishes of the international community (i.e. North Korea) have been barely successful.

It once required the smartest people utilizing resources from the wealthiest nations. 80 years later North Korea is making a pretty good effort. In another 80 years do you think it's unreasonable to think a wealthy individual might be able to build something?

In other words, why would building an nuclear weapon not get easier?

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a whistleblower is not a crime. Whistleblowing is regulated by law. Government agencies have internal processes for people who want to blow the whistle on conduct they may deem illegal or unethical, and it is perfectly safe to do so. Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. He broke into computer systems he did not have the right to access…

> He broke into computer systems he did not have the right to access, copied information, fled the United States, and illegally released the information he stole about government programs that were in no way illegal or unconstitutional. Ugh he didn’t break in, he had access. Also if you know anything about his case or related cases, you’d also know the proper channels don’t lead anywhere. There’s a great frontline do…

> Ugh he didn’t break in, he had access

Snowden convinced colleagues to give him their passwords: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/11/snowden...

A Google query for "Snowden stole passwords" returns a lot of results.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#47
post #2

Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requiring harmful disclosur…

Feels so hopeless.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#48

From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…

> It's a frustrating situation because intelligence agencies obviously do need to keep secrets while at the same time they can use this as justification to keep anything they want secret, even when there is no real national security concern with revealing the information.

I agree and think the way to improve this is to codify into the relevant laws that:

1. If the government claims "state secrets" they have a burden of proof to demonstrate a reasonable probability of specific and tangible harm actually occurring.

2. The judge must evaluate whether the secrecy is justified using a 'balance of harms' weighting that considering the degree and probability of harm to the other party, the public and the constitution.

3. In cases where the judge determines a state secrets exception is justified, the other party may propose remedies that allow the case to proceed while mitigating the harm. The judge may appoint a special master to determine if mitigation is possible.

4. The government must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the information which would be publicly disclosed isn't already known to or assumed by the specific target(s) they are operating against.

The last point is key. It means if the justification for the state secrets exception is to preserve spying against foreign powers and/or terrorists, the govt must show that the relevant foreign powers and terrorists don't already know (or assume) the secret info anyway. For example, Russia and China certainly know that the NSA is doing stuff like Upstream 'full take' because they do it too. We also already know that terrorists already assume that every form of electronic communication can be tapped. Thus, the only people who don't know the "secret" aren't the bad guys but the general public who aren't the supposed target of this anyway (because these spying programs aren't legally supposed to be used for criminal investigation).

I think much of the time, the reason the govt wants to keep these things secret isn't to keep it from the bad guys but rather to keep the voters from finding out and pushing congress and the courts to actually do their job and stop unconstitutional programs.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a whistleblower is not a crime. Whistleblowing is regulated by law. Government agencies have internal processes for people who want to blow the whistle on conduct they may deem illegal or unethical, and it is perfectly safe to do so. Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. He broke into computer systems he did not have the right to access…

> Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. I'm not sure why you're so trusting of the government that is openly admitting they are unwilling to release their secrets, and not only that but the court system is designed to protect this. From what I heard, he tried to go through the proper channels, and was rebuffed. So it's his word against the go…

If you go through the proper whistleblowing channels and get nowhere, it simply means that whatever it is you tried to blow the whistle on, isn't illegal, unethical, or unconstitutional. You humbly recognize that you were wrong, and go back to work. You don't start betraying your country and flee in the arms of the enemy.

Re: Judge dismisses Wikimedia case against NSA over Upstream surveillance

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He broke into computer systems he did not have the right to access, copied information, fled the United States, and illegally released the information he stole about government programs that were in no way illegal or unconstitutional. Ugh he didn’t break in, he had access. Also if you know anything about his case or related cases, you’d also know the proper channels don’t lead anywhere. There’s a great frontline do…

> Ugh he didn’t break in, he had access Snowden convinced colleagues to give him their passwords: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/11/snowden... A Google query for "Snowden stole passwords" returns a lot of results.

I think you missed a lot of the phrasing:

> supposedly gained access

He was an IT administrator who had Sudo access to pretty much everything. I’d be careful of a lot of the stuff you read in 2013. There was and still is a concerted effort to discredit Snowden and make people feel he is a traitor.

Example: why did they cancel his passport after his plane left for Russia? (To say he’s a Russian spy)

There’s a lot of examples of this. Highly recommend some of the documentaries on the subject I and some recent discussion on the topic.

Post reply on HN