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

U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 113 posts

Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal

#81

Post by havetocharge »

raxxorrax wrote: post #27
parsimo2010 wrote: post #22

Since there are multiple comments about how the US government must/should pardon Snowden now, I'd like to make a top level comment to clarify some things about how this does not obligate the government to change his status. 1. The court only found that a single program exposed by Snowden was illegal. Snowden released a bunch of other information that was a violation of the NDA he signed when he was given a security c…

I think this is true and that is why fleeing to Russia was the correct choice. Because the whistle blower channels don't work.

You're right that whistleblower channels don't work, at the very least according to Snowden. But you're wrong about him fleeing to Russia, as that's not where he was going to, but where he ended up.

Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal

#82

Post by Fnoord »

arghwhat wrote: post #60
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're saying is that the existing whistleblower protections are inadequate: > 1. The court only found that a single program exposed by Snowden was illegal. Snowden released a bunch of other information that was a violation of the NDA he signed when he was given a security clearance. Requirement of perfection and a superhuman level of ability to sift through more information than any individual could before shar…

Whistleblower protection are bit tricky to define. When is something whistleblowing, when is it a leak, when is it malicious, and when is it espionage? It's easy to allow leaks about illegal acts, but if you start allowing leaks about secret but legal acts too, then things get blurry. I personally don't think a government, ultimately a servant of the people, should be allowed to keep secrets from the people, but that…

The problem is that if you inform your citizens, you also inform your enemy (who can read your language, are among the citizens). With the globalization due to electronics and the Internet, this is even more true, compared to medieval times or Cold War times (where this was also true, but there was arguably higher latency on information, and a higher language barrier as well).

Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal

#83

Post by autisticcurio »

markild wrote: post #9
LockAndLol wrote: post #5

So, are the espionage charges against Snowden going to be dropped? Otherwise they want to convict a man of exposing illegal activity, which doesn't make a lot of sense.

There are legal and illegal ways to disclose illegal activity. The fact that the activity was illegal, doesn't automatically make any disclosure of it legal. Not arguing one way or the other here, as I simply don't know enough about the situation.

Here in the UK the security services run the show. You could be forgiven for thinking the UK is a democracy, its easy to manipulate politicians with Whitehall providing the data leading politicians to arrive at a conclusion that isnt accurate. Always do your own research, trust no one, people will go to great lengths to protect their positions, wages and pensions and show me were any of you have agreed to the laws forced on you. Its just legal fascism.

Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal

#84

Post by metiscus »

natcombs wrote: post #75
Schiendelman wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like fascism.

No, it sounds like a rogue IC agency. The textbook definition of fascism doesn’t apply here. This word keeps appearing on HN without any reasoning

In the modern zeitgeist anything authoritarian or that can be interpreted from the center-left to be slightly right of center is being called fascism as shorthand for "bad policy I disagree with". The conflation of authoritarianism vs policy difference is where some danger lies.

Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal

#85

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

gzer0 wrote: post #70
alilsumpinditto wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would just like to point out, Putin was on record in an interview talking about Snowden, and was pretty open about how these programs make sense from an intelligence point of view, and pretty much said that Russia is doing the same thing. He wasn't pretending like they're not doing the exact same thing. I believe it's somewhat of a don't hate the player, hate the game from the perspective of the CIA/KGB/what have you…

The "nothing to hide" argument mistakenly suggests that privacy is something only criminals desire. Fences and curtains are ways to ensure a measure of privacy, not indicators of criminal behavior. Privacy is a fundamental part of a dignified life.

That's not an accurate representation of reality.

Let's demand that, and in the mean time wouldn't hurt to be honest.

Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal

#87

Post by rawoke083600 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #30
parsimo2010 wrote: post #22

Since there are multiple comments about how the US government must/should pardon Snowden now, I'd like to make a top level comment to clarify some things about how this does not obligate the government to change his status. 1. The court only found that a single program exposed by Snowden was illegal. Snowden released a bunch of other information that was a violation of the NDA he signed when he was given a security c…

What you're saying is that the existing whistleblower protections are inadequate: > 1. The court only found that a single program exposed by Snowden was illegal. Snowden released a bunch of other information that was a violation of the NDA he signed when he was given a security clearance. Requirement of perfection and a superhuman level of ability to sift through more information than any individual could before shar…

>What you're saying is that the existing whistleblower protections are inadequate:

^^^Exactly THIS ! Missing the "Forrest for the tree's ! One day our kids will asked us:

Kids:"Why did you guys let it happen ?"

Parents: "Oh we wanted to stop them, but the people that could, they were not completing the correct forms !... So you know, better let the gov just kept on spying on us all... Can't have improper forms now !"

Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal

#89

Post by marcusverus »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #30
parsimo2010 wrote: post #22

Since there are multiple comments about how the US government must/should pardon Snowden now, I'd like to make a top level comment to clarify some things about how this does not obligate the government to change his status. 1. The court only found that a single program exposed by Snowden was illegal. Snowden released a bunch of other information that was a violation of the NDA he signed when he was given a security c…

What you're saying is that the existing whistleblower protections are inadequate: > 1. The court only found that a single program exposed by Snowden was illegal. Snowden released a bunch of other information that was a violation of the NDA he signed when he was given a security clearance. Requirement of perfection and a superhuman level of ability to sift through more information than any individual could before shar…

> Requirement of perfection and a superhuman level of ability to sift through more information than any individual could before sharing it with anyone who could help with doing so.

What you refer to as 'perfection' I would call 'reasonable due diligence and discretion'. If you don't know what's in the files you're releasing, you don't even know if you're providing sufficient information to prove your point. If a whistleblower can release any amount of unrelated information, whistleblowing becomes indistinguishable from espionage.

> Requirement to do something that can get you put on a list, and thereby either lose access to the information or get put under surveillance so that you can no longer release the information if the official channels are fruitless.

The requirement to notify congress would appear to give potential high-level whistleblowers a way to field complaints to sympathetic ears. Among the 538 representatives and senators, there are plenty of folks who would champion this cause while working to secure the anonymity of the whistleblower.

Re: U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal

#90

Post by naringas »

chrisbennet wrote: post #44

I doubt Snowden was ignorant about what happened to those who "followed the rules". Their lives were ruined and nothing changed. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon... . "None of the lawful whistleblowers who tried to expose the government’s warrantless surveillance – and Drake was far from the only one who tried – had any success,” Devine told me. “They came forward and made their charges, b…

how's is Snowden any different?

he had to go live in exile and nothing changed

Post reply on HN