Live data from Hacker News

On the 10th anniversary of the Snowden revelations

electrospaces.net

191–200 of 242 posts

Re: On the 10th anniversary of the Snowden revelations

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the simplest explanation is that people have it good enough to not rock the boat, and those among the literally unwashed, and untreated, masses who don't have bread and circuses would quickly be shutdown if they tried to move on any part of the government. Seems to me this state of surveillance has just been accepted as a norm. People in the business have taken precautions like using more encryption and audit…

>People in the business have taken precautions like using more encryption Do you mean for their own small scale activities? The only ECDH curves possible to use on the big tech internet were given by the head of the NSA with no explanation and are manipulatable.

I meant in many ways, not just encryption. Just didn't feel like elaborating.

For example my $dayjob does government contracts (in europe) and we're noticing a lot more agencies request on-prem, within borders, service hosting.

Re: On the 10th anniversary of the Snowden revelations

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Hollywood wants to make money. And most Hollywood decision makers want to brag about having Important Friends in High Places (like the DoD). Producing anti-war movies (or otherwise making the DoD look bad) would get them ~nothing that they really want.

That goes down the same conspiracy theory rabbit hole like claiming that all state employee bureaucrats just try to bloat their dept. to have more power which ultimately wastes tax money. Some people have standards and want to do good. Some of them work in Hollywood. And some of them in your city's administration. Not everybody is as selfish and unethical as portrayed here. Maybe it reflects on the person expressing…

The theory is actually that some people have standards, some people just want to advance, and in the long run the latter will inevitably dominate the organization.

Re: On the 10th anniversary of the Snowden revelations

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, yes, the technical correct, best kind of correct. Remind me, why the country an ocean away has it's troops in these countries? And while we are it, can you explain why the country with only two countries on it's borders (one is allied, the other one is clearly not hostile) has a standing Army (not navy, not air force) of 460k+ active personnel?

> remind me... Because they asked, because WW2 & NATO, because of the USSR and now Russia. If they weren't there, what might Russia have tried before 2022? > And while we are it Because of the Russia, China, NK, Iran. Who's going to stop them from attacking their neighbors?

[flagged]

Re: On the 10th anniversary of the Snowden revelations

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That goes down the same conspiracy theory rabbit hole like claiming that all state employee bureaucrats just try to bloat their dept. to have more power which ultimately wastes tax money. Some people have standards and want to do good. Some of them work in Hollywood. And some of them in your city's administration. Not everybody is as selfish and unethical as portrayed here. Maybe it reflects on the person expressing…

The theory is actually that some people have standards, some people just want to advance, and in the long run the latter will inevitably dominate the organization.

Yep. About as "conspiracy" as "managers in the XYZ Corp. Sales Dept. are all eager to make XYZ Corp's products look good".

Meanwhile...the US Army's Public Affair Dept. is headed by a 2-star general (same rank as the top general in command of an entire Army Division), and its mission is:

"Public affairs fulfills the Army's obligation to keep the American people and the Army informed, and helps to establish the conditions that lead to confidence in America's Army and its readiness to conduct operations in peacetime, conflict and war."

(Source: https://www.army.mil/publicaffairs/ I'd guess that the Navy, Air Force, etc. all have similar...)

Re: On the 10th anniversary of the Snowden revelations

#195
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvote it because it’s been repeated a dozen times and there’s a lack of intellectual honesty to say that a prediction that Russia wouldn’t invade is the same as spreading Russian propaganda for deliberate and malicious reasons. I can’t be bothered to explain it more than this because any ability to not see this means I’m wasting my time explaining it further

> I downvote it because it’s been repeated a dozen times and there’s a lack of intellectual honesty to say that a prediction that Russia wouldn’t invade is the same as spreading Russian propaganda for deliberate and malicious reasons. It wasn't just a good-faith prediction, he was quite cocky and arrogant about that[0], including, ironically, accusing others of amplifying disinformation campaign: "So... if nobody sho…

I'll be charitable by assuming that people here are getting defensive by their hero not living up to expectations. Snowden is (justifiably) angry about the US treatment of him and happily amplifies Russian propaganda as some sort of badly considered revenge.

It's a shame that he uses his platform for this, especially as the current propaganda is in support of Russia rolling their tanks across the border and killing thousands of people in Ukraine.

Re: On the 10th anniversary of the Snowden revelations

#196
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its the behavior of someone that doesn't want to go to prison in the US. There are literally only a handful of countries that are viable to avoiding that. Them being geopolitical opponents is exactly what they are countries that are viable to avoiding that. You are choosing to put the cart before the horse, that he went to geopolitical opponents to give secrets, and not that he was going to a handful of countries tha…

[flagged]

What is it about Snowden discussions that brings out all the moral grandstanders and internet tough guys?

Re: On the 10th anniversary of the Snowden revelations

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how?

Sure. Ukraine at the moment is completely dependent on its allies to support the war effort. Without their help Ukraine wouldn't hold on for long. Recent Russian disinformation campaigns seem to be concentrated on eroding public support for Ukraine in western countries through various means and they had some success among the whole Greenwald-Taibbi-Snowden-Peterson crowd specifically and MAGA-people in general. Losin…

Does reading taibbi or thinking the snowden revelations were a good thing make someone a MAGA person? Is Taibbi running Russian disinformation campaigns?

I don't fault you for your position one bit, but this stuff seems a little conspiratorial to me. And what Peterson are you talking about?

Re: On the 10th anniversary of the Snowden revelations

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That goes down the same conspiracy theory rabbit hole like claiming that all state employee bureaucrats just try to bloat their dept. to have more power which ultimately wastes tax money. Some people have standards and want to do good. Some of them work in Hollywood. And some of them in your city's administration. Not everybody is as selfish and unethical as portrayed here. Maybe it reflects on the person expressing…

The theory is actually that some people have standards, some people just want to advance, and in the long run the latter will inevitably dominate the organization.

Not necessarily. Good company leadership pushes against this and keeps the people with standards.

This kind of statement assumes a too simple model of the involved actors.

Re: On the 10th anniversary of the Snowden revelations

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He went to China and leaked documents of what Chinese systems the NSA had compromised in a failed attempt to gain asylum in Hong Kong. China kicked him out. The fact that he's in Russia is 100% on Russia. If you think the Russians care about Snowden's travel documents, you don't know anything about Russia.

If you think that russia is not a beuerocratic hellhole that cares to an extreme amount about travel documents you have never had the pleasure of dealing with russian border security in a moscow airport. Or you have more money and backing than an average person. I hear langely is quite hot this time of year?

If you think the bureaucracy's dealings with average citizens applies to Snowden's inability to leave Russia, you have no idea how it works. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-ecuado...

Re: On the 10th anniversary of the Snowden revelations

#200
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is true; and I find it hard to understand. Russia actually invading Ukraine full-on was the most irrational and self-destructive thing Putin could've done. By all measures it was and still is a terrible idea. Only if you thought Putin was a madman you could've predicted it but before the invasion that wasn't his reputation at all IMO. I think he was seen as relatively pragmatic and rational (for a thug).

I agree that it looked like a crazy thing to do. But I'm not one of those who reaches for the word "madman" when someone does something that seems to me to be irrational. With the benefit of hindsight, it doesn't seem so irrational to me now. * Russia was under sanctions for the invasion of Crimea; the central bank had built up a huge stock of foreign currency, but it was only going to diminish with time. * The Russi…

I think it is astute to look at things in these terms, and avoid the lazy but quite common exercise of labeling motivations and actions you don't understand as "not understandable."

George Kennan, who came up in a recent HN post [0], has a fair bit to say on the subject. Namely, that throughout its history, Russia has been obsessed with expanding and securing its border for perfectly understandable strategic reasons. Especially regarding Ukraine and Crimea. Something along the lines of their western borders being completely open and strategically terrible to defend, thus the desire to push them out to more defensible locations. Of course you also have key routes for shipping, military bases, and oil flow in Ukraine that make it an incredibly appealing strategic objective. Kennan actually defined this mentality of western territorial expansion as an essential part of the Russian character, that it should be used as a backdrop to inform analysis of Russia 's motivations and contextualize strategic decisions (this was a key part of his analysis that ultimately lead to the whole "containment" strategy in the cold war).

It seems as though Western expansion has become completely ingrained basically to the point of a cultural imperative for any aspiring politician or political operator in Russia. Kind of like the requirement that any US politician must publicly proclaim their love of freedom and God in more or less equal measure (from what I can gather we've had exactly two openly atheist congress members, out of >11,000 members throughout history). In this way, it doesn't necessarily have to be rational in any absolute sense, it is rational in terms of national politics, beyond the point of expediency and into the territory of a binary whether or not you fit the hard requirements.

In 1992, Kennan wrote that NATO expansion towards former Soviet states in Western Europe including Ukraine, “ would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era... Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations; and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”

He seems to have been largely ignored, not for the first in his career, up until Putin lead Russia to the annexation of Crimea. An act which seems to have taken heads of state and the international relations people by surprise, and perhaps undermined their optimistic beliefs about Putin having been coaxed into political/military partnership with the Western world (through economic incentives, international relations norms, etc). There was a lot of stock put on this idea that through economic incentives, trade agreements, and such, both Russia and China could be "brought into the fold" of neoliberalism and Western democratic principles. People were quite shocked to find out it didn't play out like a Disney movie with regards to Putin, and it's looking more and more like China isn't going to continue playing along with the tune set by the West when it is no longer in their strategic interest to do so.

Everyone from Obama to John Kerry to Angela Merkel were so perplexed over Russia's move in 2014 that their only explanations (including to each other in private, apparently) revolved around Putin being divorced from reality. However, as Henry Kissinger noted, the demonization of Putin is a stand-in for foreign policy analysis when there is nothing better at hand to guide us. So perhaps it is our lack of understanding of his real situation and objectives rather than his (of what is in both his and Russia's strategic interest) that is driving this urge to paint him as a irrational lunatic.

It seems likely that, as Kennan predicted, NATO expansion and general American/European policy caused a return of cold-war thinking and relations.. but only in the mind of Putin and Russian politicians. The rest of the world was out of step, and apparently wouldn't realize their error and catch up to reality until after that key moment in 2022, when just about everyone except US intelligence agencies didn't really believe the invasion was going to happen.

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37374013

Post reply on HN