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

31–40 of 81 posts

Re: About the Reuters article

#31

Post by lectrick »

onebaddude wrote: post #22
seferphier wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no such thing as "too much" whistle blowing.

Let's assume for a moment that there exists an individual who (via unknown mechanisms) knows about 90% of the hidden affairs of marriages in the world.

Should that person "blow that whistle", as it were, suddenly turning almost all relationships "honest"? Or would it cause widespread havoc and upheaval?

Re: About the Reuters article

#32

Post by JamesArgo »

gyardley wrote: post #28
gnosis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 C…

It's perfectly possible to dislike the government and vigilantes simultaneously.

Not insofar as a vigilante is defined as a non-governmental actor working to change the government. If you don't trust the process and that set of possible people who act outside it, you don't trust anyone or thing at all. You can hold this position in any particular case, but not as a general rule, at least if you want to be able to act coherently in these types of situations.

Re: About the Reuters article

#33

Post by czr80 »

Amadou wrote: post #25
tzs wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is all about word choice. It would be just as true to say asylum seeking exiled whistle-blower. Both descriptions are totally accurate, neither description is neutral.

He hasn't been exiled.

Re: About the Reuters article

#34

Post by brown9-2 »

gnosis wrote: post #17
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 C…

At the very least, deciders chosen by a government elected by the people, whatever value that has, is of more value than a single self-chosen person who happened to have the correct level of access and skills to access more documents than he was supposed to.

Re: About the Reuters article

#35

Post by maratd »

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…

> Until and unless he is granted a pardon or some other form of immunity from prosecution, it seems that Snowden's best interest ...

Isn't that the rub? The rational action on Obama's part would be to pardon him, just to get him back. Instead, he is vindictively pursuing him across the globe and devoting resources that seem absolutely disproportionate to what was revealed.

Re: About the Reuters article

#36

Post by zwtaylor »

tptacek wrote: post #29

Did Greenwald just say that Snowden has documents that could cause grievous harm the United States, and that he may have set up a dead man's switch that would cause them to be published should any harm come to Snowden? Three possibilities I can see: (1) Greenwald really can't think even one move ahead and see that he's just published a reason for any number of US adversaries to kill his source. (2) Greenwald understa…

I too immediately thought this statement was a misstep in Greenwald's otherwise discriminating journalism. The possibilities you outlined detail exactly why, but I would add a fourth, if somewhat far-fetched, circumstance to your list.

(4) Snowden has verified knowledge of an imminent death threat from the USG and is using Greenwald to convey awareness of his "dead man's switch" for his own protection. Employing Greenwald as a channel for this message, as opposed to himself, gives him some cover legally and won't further alienate Snowden from the public who might see him as blackmailing the United States if he were to outright state this in say, a new video interview.

Re: About the Reuters article

#37

Post by [deleted] »

kefs wrote: post #2

FTA: For those who say that they wish there was more attention paid to the substance of the NSA stories than Snowden: here is the list of the NSA revelations we've published over the last month. Feel free to focus on them any time. http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/07/nsa-revelations-ov...

[deleted]

Re: About the Reuters article

#38

Post by [deleted] »

kefs wrote: post #2

FTA: For those who say that they wish there was more attention paid to the substance of the NSA stories than Snowden: here is the list of the NSA revelations we've published over the last month. Feel free to focus on them any time. http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/07/nsa-revelations-ov...

[deleted]

Re: About the Reuters article

#39

Post by jmackinn »

tptacek wrote: post #29

Did Greenwald just say that Snowden has documents that could cause grievous harm the United States, and that he may have set up a dead man's switch that would cause them to be published should any harm come to Snowden? Three possibilities I can see: (1) Greenwald really can't think even one move ahead and see that he's just published a reason for any number of US adversaries to kill his source. (2) Greenwald understa…

Snowden made it very clear weeks ago that there was a dead man switch for the release of documents. Greenwald was just restating it with some sensationalism. Just trying to get more people to read the article.

Re: About the Reuters article

#40

Post by tptacek »

jmackinn wrote: post #39
tptacek wrote: post #29

Did Greenwald just say that Snowden has documents that could cause grievous harm the United States, and that he may have set up a dead man's switch that would cause them to be published should any harm come to Snowden? Three possibilities I can see: (1) Greenwald really can't think even one move ahead and see that he's just published a reason for any number of US adversaries to kill his source. (2) Greenwald understa…

Snowden made it very clear weeks ago that there was a dead man switch for the release of documents. Greenwald was just restating it with some sensationalism. Just trying to get more people to read the article.

Isn't Greenwald now relying on all of the governments of Iran, North Korea, China, Syria, Russia, and who knows who else to also understand that he's just being a sensationalist?
Post reply on HN