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

Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations

#21

Post by 735409264082 »

qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #2

I wish we could have a honest discussions about the pro and cons of the panopticon the internet has become. Not just the usual "Might makes right" glue moral flaws to the person putting questions to power oppossed by fierce "liberty at all cost aka anarchism". It seems pretty obvious that the individual can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it, but then again, i find the three letter agencies t…

No group of individuals can be trusted more than the individual. Groups of individuals who claim the right to enforce their will on other individuals by means of violence (e.g. governments) can be trusted least of all.

Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations

#22

Post by cpursley »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #17
KerrAvon wrote: post #8

Two things can be true: - the NSA and/or other three letter agencies are/were out of control - Snowden did enormous damage to US and allies with his indiscriminate distribution of classified information https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/snowden-is-a-traitor-and...

No government is my ally.

Glad some people get it. Governments are just big institutions. And monopolies at that. Ones with the power to kill and imprison.

Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations

#23

Post by ceejayoz »

735409264082 wrote: post #21
qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #2

I wish we could have a honest discussions about the pro and cons of the panopticon the internet has become. Not just the usual "Might makes right" glue moral flaws to the person putting questions to power oppossed by fierce "liberty at all cost aka anarchism". It seems pretty obvious that the individual can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it, but then again, i find the three letter agencies t…

No group of individuals can be trusted more than the individual. Groups of individuals who claim the right to enforce their will on other individuals by means of violence (e.g. governments) can be trusted least of all.

> No group of individuals can be trusted more than the individual.

That's going to depend heavily on which individual.

Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations

#24

Post by sealeck »

andrewmutz wrote: post #20
sealeck wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Snowden did enormous damage to US and allies with his indiscriminate distribution of classified information Sure, in the same way that the police do to organised white-collar criminals when they arrest them and put them in prison.

I am not the parent poster, but Snowden revealed far more information than was necessary to blow the whistle on domestic spying at the NSA. Just take a look at the list of revelations https://www.lawfareblog.com/snowden-revelations Most of the revelations are not at all about domestic spying and instead revealed details about doing what the NSA is chartered to do: international spying. You can consider it immoral tha…

> You can consider it immoral that the NSA monitored the communications of Angela Merkel or the italian ministry of defense, but that isn't whistle-blowing. It's the reason that the NSA exists.

It is definitely whisteblowing to reveal that a country has been secretely wiretapping the communications of its (supposed) allies – one can blow the whistle on things which are "legal" especially when their legality has been surreptitiously pushed through the back door.

Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations

#25

Post by carapace »

qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #2

I wish we could have a honest discussions about the pro and cons of the panopticon the internet has become. Not just the usual "Might makes right" glue moral flaws to the person putting questions to power oppossed by fierce "liberty at all cost aka anarchism". It seems pretty obvious that the individual can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it, but then again, i find the three letter agencies t…

I think the panopticon is unavoidable (I'll expand below) so the question is how to harness it to get a humane techno-totalitarian system?

People have pointed out that "humane totalitarian" is an oxymoron, and I agree, but I think it's the challenge we face.

It seems to me that we can and should ensure that the people in power are themselves subject to the panopticon. Literally politicians should be 24/7 live streaming their lives. (This is in the context where we are all live-streaming 24/7 whether we want to or not, which is pretty much the case today at least in high-tech nations.) Police badges should be integrated with cameras, the badge IS the camera, the camera IS the badge, and if the camera is off the officer is off-duty.

Thoughts?

- - - -

I think the panopticon is unavoidable due to technological and economic considerations. The technology is only getting smaller, cheaper, lower-power, etc. and it's already ubiquitous. (See "sensing for WiFi if you really want to freak out!) Our phones already monitor and report our location in near realtime. Smart cars and traffic systems are a de facto surveillance system even for people who don't carry phones. The economic benefits are inarguable, and only going to get better.

And really, if you could trade your privacy for an end to almost all crime, isn't that worth it? Considering that you wouldn't be alone, that everyone else's privacy is gone too, it's not so bad?

Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations

#26

Post by [deleted] »

tootie wrote: post #9

I don't think that's much of a revelation. Every time national security information falls into the hands of a news org, the government will ask them not to publish it. Sometimes appealing to them on civic grounds that it will weaken security or probably threatening legal action. The NY Times famously sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for nearly a year because they were lead to believe it could compromise ongoi…

[deleted]

Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations

#27

Post by VictorPath »

tootie wrote: post #9

I don't think that's much of a revelation. Every time national security information falls into the hands of a news org, the government will ask them not to publish it. Sometimes appealing to them on civic grounds that it will weaken security or probably threatening legal action. The NY Times famously sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for nearly a year because they were lead to believe it could compromise ongoi…

> national security information

The word national security used to mean protecting a country just invaded, then moved to troops on the border looking like they'll invade. Now you've stretched it to the government doing mass surveillance on its citizens (and storing it forever). During COINTELPRO, Hoover and his secret political police in the FBI spied on and worked to anonymously disrupt feminist groups and other political organizations, and this is just a continuation of that - set up in secret incidentally. I don't see how some elite trying to set up a police state to exert political control has anything to do with national security. Luckily the FBI raided Trump recently, so Republican wariness may have them go back to that old idea of a Republican secretary of state that "gentlemen do not read each others' mail".

Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations

#28

Post by nimbius »

tootie wrote: post #9

I don't think that's much of a revelation. Every time national security information falls into the hands of a news org, the government will ask them not to publish it. Sometimes appealing to them on civic grounds that it will weaken security or probably threatening legal action. The NY Times famously sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for nearly a year because they were lead to believe it could compromise ongoi…

>In the US or UK media orgs generally has very little to fear in terms of actual punishment, but they do have to make a very real calculus over whether they're serving the public interest.

not true. media organizations that do not report in accordance with and to the governments favour may lose preferential access to press conferences as retaliation. their parent companies, viacom, CBS, and Warner for example, may lose the cooperation of the government on their next latest action film which may deny them access to state parks or military equipment and bases for filming and props. When you publish something the government doesnt like, they can also just straight up seize your profits from that material as well. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-government-can-seize-prof...

television news in the united states is under no objective requirement to serve the public interest in the 21st century. the news was originally provided as part of a service to the mandate from the FCC that license holders contribute to the public good, but modern news is partisan, divisive, appeals extensively to emotion, and uses manipulative scare tactics to drive viewership and ratings with a combination of conjecture and talk shows.

Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations

#29

Post by robertlagrant »

causi wrote: post #3
qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #2

I wish we could have a honest discussions about the pro and cons of the panopticon the internet has become. Not just the usual "Might makes right" glue moral flaws to the person putting questions to power oppossed by fierce "liberty at all cost aka anarchism". It seems pretty obvious that the individual can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it, but then again, i find the three letter agencies t…

It seems pretty obvious that the individual can not be trusted with the power modern technology hands to it Hard disagree. Modern technology is mishandled most intensely by large organizations. When it's misused by individuals it's usually based on information freely given. An individual might send your employer an insensitive tweet you made ten years ago but an organization can do anything from unmasking an anonymou…

> Modern technology is mishandled most intensely by large organizations

Of course. There are more individuals in larger organizations :)

Re: Snowden: US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing revelations

#30

Post by colechristensen »

tootie wrote: post #9

I don't think that's much of a revelation. Every time national security information falls into the hands of a news org, the government will ask them not to publish it. Sometimes appealing to them on civic grounds that it will weaken security or probably threatening legal action. The NY Times famously sat on the warrantless wiretapping story for nearly a year because they were lead to believe it could compromise ongoi…

There are real cases where this is true and it's the responsibility of a news organization to weigh the public good against the consequences of sharing information and being very selective about what secrets to publish.

You should not want a news organization to err on either extreme by publishing literally everything they get their hands on (Wikileaks) or acting as a de facto arm of the state (state media outlet of choice).

I would argue that neither extreme count as journalists.

>I don't think that's much of a revelation.

Absolutely, they basically wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't ask. Asking is a lot different than many other tactics.

Post reply on HN