U.S. court: Mass surveillance program exposed by Snowden was illegal • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by readarticle » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 1:06 PM UTC

kome wrote: post #8

capableweb wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how anything else could happen here, unless the USA is truly a lawless country where the rich and powerful is in control without any consequences. So yeah, Snowden will still be on the run.

I fully agree. USA is lawless, for example U.S. blacklists International Criminal Court prosecutor over Afghanistan war crimes probe: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-icc-sanctions/u-s-bla...

International law doesn’t exist as we would understand it, the global system’s inherent anarchy and thus lack of law, or lawlessness, is essentially axiomatic in IR.

It may seem nitpicky, but I genuinely don’t think people understand how utterly anarchic geopolitics is, even at the height of unipolar stability in decades past.

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

#102

Post by yokaze » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 1:09 PM UTC

627467 wrote: post #94

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…

Non-us citizen nor lawyer, but doesn't a pardon require a conviction? Has Snowden been convicted? Does _anything_ obligates the President to pardon anyone? And why would those points you listed invalidate a pardon? If Snowden was considered (by courts, government) to be a whistle blower by legal definition, he wouldn't need a pardon, right?

> Non-us citizen nor lawyer, but doesn't a pardon require a conviction?

No, Nixon wasn't convicted either. He received a pardon nonetheless. Accepting a pardon implies though an admission of guilt.

> Does _anything_ obligates the President to pardon anyone?

AFAIK, not in the strict sense of the word. In the looser sense, public opinion.

> And why would those points you listed invalidate a pardon?

It would at most, because it influences public opinion. But technically, all those are reasons, why there is a pardon. The law may say he is guilty, but there might be overruling concerns at hand.

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

#103

Post by spookythrow » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 1:51 PM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #15

mlang23 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now would be about the best time for him to make that move. With elections upcoming and all that.

Trump's pardoning of Snowden would lose more presidential election support than it would win. Sure, there are plenty of people who would support the decision to pardon Snowden, but I can't see them being the type of people to vote for Trump based on that. Existing Trump supporters, on the other hand, I could see "punishing" Trump for his weakness in pardoning a "traitor who fled to Russia".

You assume it is possible for Trump to lose presidential support. Just as he said, "I could shoot somebody in the middle of 5th avenue and not lose voters". People don't care who gets elected, they really just vote party-line.

However, if Snowden were pardoned, and Cannabis were legalized, I do think Trump would win centrist and libertarians.

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

#104

Post by arghwhat » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 2:00 PM UTC

Fnoord wrote: post #82

arghwhat wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> The problem is that if you inform your citizens, you also inform your enemy

Indeed, but the enemy usually has the intelligence services to know it anyway, leaving your citizens uninformed as the only real side-effect.

I don't think secrecy is important in national security anymore. On the other hand, the secrecy is used for evil, such as keeping citizens in the dark around government plans to control popular opinion in their favor, falsely positioning themselves as the people's superiors.

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

#105

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 2:05 PM UTC

Schiendelman wrote: post #23

sneak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read Barton Gellman’s book that describes and alludes to some of the details of what were in the actual (never published) Snowden files, I do not believe that the US IC would let him continue to live, even if he were fully pardoned. I doubt it will ever be safe for him in the US again, despite his legal status.

Sounds like fascism.

[deleted]

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

#106

Post by sneak » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 2:12 PM UTC

raxxorrax wrote: post #32

sneak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read Barton Gellman’s book that describes and alludes to some of the details of what were in the actual (never published) Snowden files, I do not believe that the US IC would let him continue to live, even if he were fully pardoned. I doubt it will ever be safe for him in the US again, despite his legal status.

They wouldn't kill him, that would be an amateurish mistake, you would have a martyr. Destroying his reputation, pressure friends and family...

If the US didn’t freak out when they found out the 4th amendment was simply smoke and mirrors, they wouldn’t freak out if the CIA assassinated one of their own. They’re not freaking out while the CIA slowly tortures a journalist (Assange) to death in prison, in full view of the press and international media.

I think most Americans don’t know or care who Ed Snowden is. The Last Week Tonight segment with him was rather instructive.

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

#107

Post by polytely » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 2:18 PM UTC

627467 wrote: post #99

polytely wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clarification: He was in Russia when the US cancelled his passport stranding him there, his intended destination was Ecuador. I think stranding him in Russia was a deliberate choice to discredit Snowden and it seems to be working very well.

What leads you to perceive that being stranded in Russia is discrediting Snowden? I don't doubt that (almost) any other American taking shelter in Russia would make a dent on their reputation in US, but I'm curious about Snowden specifically. IMO, Those who know what he did and how he did (in general) seem to support him. A minority hates him. But the rest of public opinion?

One of the often repeated talking points from the government/intelligence community is that Snowden traded away US secrets to an enemy country. That narrative has way more impact - I think - when he is stranded in Russia instead of Ecuador. (Snowden denies this and says he didn't have access to the leaked materials any more when he left Hong Kong)

I think the intelligence community and establishment democrats & republicans are generally still out to get Snowden, while his support comes from the fringes left and (libertarian-)right, who have basically no actual power.

Public opinion seems to be mixed and a lot of regular people don't have strongly held opinions about Snowden (or mass surveillance in general). The Patriot Act is still in effect for god’s sake even after all these revelations.

Lately the whole russia-gate thing has made it really easy to get people to froth at the mouth at any Russian connection, and the fact that Trump said he wanted to look at Snowden (Even a broken clock is right twice a day) automatically will turn anti-Trump people against it. So I don't see public opinion turning more positive on Snowden in the short term.

EDIT: I realized that my writing looks very GTP-3 like, but I swear i'm not a bot, I'm just having trouble connecting these thoughts in a nice way.

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

#108

Post by Fnoord » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 4:10 PM UTC

arghwhat wrote: post #104

Fnoord wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> The problem is that if you inform your citizens, you also inform your enemy Indeed, but the enemy usually has the intelligence services to know it anyway , leaving your citizens uninformed as the only real side-effect. I don't think secrecy is important in national security anymore. On the other hand, the secrecy is used for evil, such as keeping citizens in the dark around government plans to control popular opini…

> but the enemy usually has the intelligence services to know it anyway

Depends per subject and intelligence service and enemy (there is more than one).

> I don't think secrecy is important in national security anymore.

Why?

Think of it this way. I'm Dutch. Our secret services hacked into the GRU's camera system. This allowed attribution. Our secret services also did the physical last mile infiltration of Stuxnet.

Did I, as random Dutch citizen have to know this? No. As the enemy does not know it, and will know it when the Dutch population knows. These are two examples where a need to know basis makes sense, and is very limited.

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

#109

Post by elmo2you » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

havetocharge wrote: post #62

elmo2you wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be daft. They'll argue that in the exceptional case of state security, exposing any kind of secretive information (illegal or otherwise) is still a crime. They'll just argue that only "normal citizens" shouldn't be barred from reporting criminal activities. Of course it is bullshit .. but since when did that stop them? Exceptionalism has been the key word, used almost every time the government violated a laws o…

US government is complicated. There ARE many good parts to it, and many good elected and unelected people who genuinely serve their people. There is also a big dark part to it as well. Issues with police that are being exposed recently and widely is one example. There is corruption. And there are extremely secretive and dark aspects as well, but the average person isn't aware of them, and would have a hard time recon…

I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think that's ever a valid argument. Illegal actions are just that: illegal, no matter who commits them. I don't see why a "good" person should get away with it.

To drive that point even a little further, the mafia (the actual one, in Italy) also had done many good things, helping many local people out, often when it was the government that totally failed those people. But none of that made it any less of a ruthless criminal organization.

Should any of the US government's good deeds (if any, because I have never seen the USA do anything abroad that wasn't first and foremost good for them, only in second place for the local population) ever excuse any of their criminal activities?

I don't see what is complicated here. To me, the answer is just as clear as with the Italian mafia (during its heydays): no! Crimes are crimes, no matter who commits them.

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

#110

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Sep 03, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

Fnoord wrote: post #108

arghwhat wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that if you inform your citizens, you also inform your enemy Indeed, but the enemy usually has the intelligence services to know it anyway , leaving your citizens uninformed as the only real side-effect. I don't think secrecy is important in national security anymore. On the other hand, the secrecy is used for evil, such as keeping citizens in the dark around government plans to control popular opini…

> but the enemy usually has the intelligence services to know it anyway Depends per subject and intelligence service and enemy (there is more than one). > I don't think secrecy is important in national security anymore. Why? Think of it this way. I'm Dutch. Our secret services hacked into the GRU's camera system. This allowed attribution. Our secret services also did the physical last mile infiltration of Stuxnet. Di…

There is a difference between operational secrets and methodological secrets. If you're about to stage an operation against the enemy, do you publish the fact that you're coming? No. But then when the operation is over, there is nothing more to keep secret, and the public can find out what has been done on a timescale that allows them to reasonably cause bad actors to be punished or prevent it from happening over and over.

By contrast, with something like a secret mass surveillance program, there is no "end" where you keep something a secret for 18 months but then everybody finds out about it through official channels, so things like that don't get to be a secret. One way or another the public needs to timely find out what's being done in their name.