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

About the Reuters article

guardian.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 81 posts

Re: About the Reuters article

#11

Post by brown9-2 »

oleganza wrote: post #7

Every mainstream newspaper, tv and radio channel has to have a state-issued license to operate. This means that state can always find a reason to dismiss the license and make business shut down. This fact creates a great bias towards discussing something safer in the eye of the state. Talking about Snowden character is so much safer than speaking openly about how NSA spies on everyone by forcing companies to give the…

A license to operate a newspaper? This sounds far fetched as there are no limited resources like airwaves being occupied.

Re: About the Reuters article

#12

Post by brown9-2 »

Greenwald was criticized for saying that the USG "should be on it's knees begging every day", a clearly inflammatory thing to say. To act like the criticism is the result of some grand government conspiracy is a bit much.

There are plenty of people outraged by the substance of what has been leaked who also don't like the idea of a) great harm coming to the country or government or legit intelligence operations, or b) a 30 year old person stuck in a Russian airport who has appointed himself the ultimate arbiter of what is leakworthy and what is not, what programs are legal and good and which are illegal and evil.

On another note, the idea of a dead mans switch that harms the government of Country A is probably an attractive target for other governments that want to harm Country A.

Re: About the Reuters article

#13

Post by acqq »

weinzierl wrote: post #10

then by bullying small countries out of letting him land for re-fueling. As far as I know Cuba was the country were a stop for re-fueling was planned on the way to South America. I have read about pressure on Ecuador, but not Cuba. Does that sentence mean that Greenwald (and probably Snowden and Wikileaks) have information that a stop in Cuba is not save?

a stop in Cuba is not safe

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/25...

In order to get a better idea, do read the whole article, here I just give one small sample: "Cuba agreed in 2006 to stop its practice of harboring American fugitives."

Re: About the Reuters article

#14

Post by nitrogen »

brown9-2 wrote: post #11
oleganza wrote: post #7

Every mainstream newspaper, tv and radio channel has to have a state-issued license to operate. This means that state can always find a reason to dismiss the license and make business shut down. This fact creates a great bias towards discussing something safer in the eye of the state. Talking about Snowden character is so much safer than speaking openly about how NSA spies on everyone by forcing companies to give the…

A license to operate a newspaper? This sounds far fetched as there are no limited resources like airwaves being occupied.

There are business licenses, code inspections, and changing zoning requirements. Not quite the same as a spectrum license, but there are still many ways for a government to exert pressure on a newspaper.

Re: About the Reuters article

#15

Post by k-mcgrady »

acqq wrote: post #13
weinzierl wrote: post #10

then by bullying small countries out of letting him land for re-fueling. As far as I know Cuba was the country were a stop for re-fueling was planned on the way to South America. I have read about pressure on Ecuador, but not Cuba. Does that sentence mean that Greenwald (and probably Snowden and Wikileaks) have information that a stop in Cuba is not save?

a stop in Cuba is not safe http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/25... In order to get a better idea, do read the whole article, here I just give one small sample: "Cuba agreed in 2006 to stop its practice of harboring American fugitives."

I wonder if that means people the US considers fugitives. As he is regarded by most of the world as an asylum seeker Cuba might decide they can let him in and they are still honouring that agreement.

Re: About the Reuters article

#16

Post by seferphier »

mikemoka wrote: post #9
reneherse wrote: post #6

Slightly off topic: The article mentions a "dead man's switch" set up by Snowden prior to making his disclosures. If he is assassinated, apparently all the documents will be publicly released. Greenwald also mentioned that the totality of what Snowden controls is "enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States." Let's as…

solitary confinement could trigger it as well probably, it depends on how things have been set up. Obama should have handled this in a totally different way, he should have treated him as a partner for having shed light upon a corrupted practice of the NSA, and should have asked the people heading the NSA to resign. This would have been a checkmate against any other US antagonist in my opinion, but I admit that is de…

that would make obama score points in the public, but it is his second term as president already.

this would also encourage more whistleblower activity that may get out of hand.

Re: About the Reuters article

#17

Post by gnosis »

brown9-2 wrote: post #12

Greenwald was criticized for saying that the USG "should be on it's knees begging every day", a clearly inflammatory thing to say. To act like the criticism is the result of some grand government conspiracy is a bit much. There are plenty of people outraged by the substance of what has been leaked who also don't like the idea of a) great harm coming to the country or government or legit intelligence operations, or b)…

"There are plenty of people outraged by the substance of what has been leaked who also don't like the idea of ... a 30 year old person stuck in a Russian airport who has appointed himself the ultimate arbiter of what is leakworthy and what is not, what programs are legal and good and which are illegal and evil."

Of course such determinations should be left to the professionals, our Supreme Leader, the oh-so-popular Congress and the stalwart defenders of liberty and justice: the Courts -- which are all so trustworthy, moral, and competent.. and who would never hide anything under the pretense of "national security" to cover their own asses, to grab more wealth and power, or keep the public from knowing of atrocities and crimes they, their buddies or their lackeys have commited.

Re: About the Reuters article

#18

Post by Daishiman »

brown9-2 wrote: post #12

Greenwald was criticized for saying that the USG "should be on it's knees begging every day", a clearly inflammatory thing to say. To act like the criticism is the result of some grand government conspiracy is a bit much. There are plenty of people outraged by the substance of what has been leaked who also don't like the idea of a) great harm coming to the country or government or legit intelligence operations, or b)…

> There are plenty of people outraged by the substance of what has been leaked who also don't like the idea of a) great harm coming to the country or government or legit intelligence operations, or b) a 30 year old person stuck in a Russian airport who has appointed himself the ultimate arbiter of what is leakworthy and what is not, what programs are legal and good and which are illegal and evil.

Oh please, there's enough outrage to go around for a whistleblower publishing stuff that most foreign intelligence services already knew and suspected, and even if it weren't that way still accted accordingly as though was real, but God let the public know, lest they know how tight the chain is.

It is extremely unlikely those documents have anything of strategic value for other nations; it is almost absolutely certain they are important for the public.

Re: About the Reuters article

#19

Post by tzs »

mtgx wrote: post #4

I thought Reuters had an "angle" almost immediately, since I saw the words fugitive and spy next to Snowden's name in the summary at the top.

They said former spy contractor, which is accurate. Fugitive is accurate. So, how exactly do you infer an angle from this?

Re: About the Reuters article

#20

Post by krek »

brown9-2 wrote: post #12

Greenwald was criticized for saying that the USG "should be on it's knees begging every day", a clearly inflammatory thing to say. To act like the criticism is the result of some grand government conspiracy is a bit much. There are plenty of people outraged by the substance of what has been leaked who also don't like the idea of a) great harm coming to the country or government or legit intelligence operations, or b)…

> b) a 30 year old person stuck in a Russian airport who has appointed himself the ultimate arbiter of what is leakworthy and what is not, what programs are legal and good and which are illegal and evil.

No, he's not the ultimate arbiter, that's what the US government tried to be, in secret, until Snowden stepped up. And others with access are free to step up as well.

Post reply on HN