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

41–50 of 81 posts

Re: About the Reuters article

#41

Post by gnosis »

brown9-2 wrote: post #34
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…

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.

Ostensibly elected (or selected, if the election was decided through fraud) in a system where more than 40% of eligible voters are too disgusted, cynical, or apathetic to vote.

In a system where elections are so influenced by money that billions are spent on advertising candidates. Where virtually all the discussion of the candidates is about their personalities and presentation (such as whether a candidate wore a flag lapel, or how he golfed) rather than about their policies and stances on concrete, important issues.

In a system where the majority of those who do vote are embarrasingly ignorant of politics, history, and the candidates and parties for whom they're voting (largely thanks to the horrendous media coverage mentioned above, and the atrocious education system in the United States).

In a system where the elected candidates can do the opposite of what he campaigned on virtually without consequence or most of their constituents noticing (thanks to the media, yet again).

In a system where gerrymandering has effectively guaranteed the seats of most members of Congress, no matter how poorly they perform. (Given the record low approval ratings of Congress, virtually all of them should been thrown out ages ago, but that's not going to happen any time soon.)

In a system where there are only two parties who agree on most issues, and collude to keep third parties and serious alternative from ever being viable.

In a system where the people appointed by the elected/selected politicians get to make decisions outside the (incredibly flawed) legal process, in secret, and with virtually no oversight or accountability to the public.

In a system that tortures prisoners, violates human rights, starts unprovoked wars that kill millions of people.

I'm sorry, but I just don't place much trust in such a system. And I applaud whistleblowers who risk their lives to expose wrongdoings.

Re: About the Reuters article

#42

Post by mseebach »

maratd wrote: post #35
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.

Pardoning him would create a pretty bad precedent for everyone else with a security clearance. How do you tell the next guy that dumps a stash of classified documents in some journalist's lap that, no, that wasn't juicy enough to get a pardon, so he's going to jail?

Despite the public interest in what Snowden revealed is, the position of the administration can only practically be that whatever you think about it, if it's classified, it's not up to you to decide that it should be public.

Re: About the Reuters article

#43

Post by grandalf »

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 find your numbered options fairly absurd.

The US has let Snowden linger in the Moscow airport, likely hoping that he'll do something stupid due to the stress.

By reminding everyone of the dead man switch, Snowden (via Greenwald) reminds the US that both have a shared interest in Snowden's asylum bid moving along smoothly.

Your conjecture above depends entirely on the idea that Snowden is unsafe at the Moscow airport.

Re: About the Reuters article

#44

Post by grandalf »

mtgx wrote: post #27
mikemoka wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is Obama completely agreed with what the NSA was doing, and most likely even ordered everything to be done that way (that's why he so viciously defended the FISA Amendments Act last year, and why he tried to get lawsuits dismissed). However, I agree that is what he should do anyway. Clapper and Alexander should get fired immediately, and so should Holder - but he's been bailing out Holder so many times, I…

Isn't it silly to fire the officials when the blame lies with the presidents? In my opinion, it's about as useful as blaming Rumsfeld for Bush's war. Appointed officials are servants who fall on their swords when needed to protect the boss. Punishing the underlings just insulates the presidents from blame.

Re: About the Reuters article

#45

Post by mhurron »

lectrick wrote: post #30
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…

> "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." I don't see how this is not analogous to a longstanding marriage with a hidden affair. Would you reveal the affair thereby destroying the marriage (but gaining a greater measure of truth)? Or would you leave it in secret? I don't believe that a thing based partly on sec…

Well there is the simple difference that a marriage is not the Government.

Re: About the Reuters article

#46

Post by tptacek »

grandalf wrote: post #43
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 find your numbered options fairly absurd. The US has let Snowden linger in the Moscow airport, likely hoping that he'll do something stupid due to the stress. By reminding everyone of the dead man switch, Snowden (via Greenwald) reminds the US that both have a shared interest in Snowden's asylum bid moving along smoothly. Your conjecture above depends entirely on the idea that Snowden is unsafe at the Moscow airpor…

What does it matter where he is? The same numbered points would apply if he was holed up in the back of a Chili's in Des Moines.

Re: About the Reuters article

#47

Post by sigil »

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…

(5) Greenwald is thinking two moves ahead. Now that US adversaries have a motive to kill his source, the US finally has a motive to protect his source.

Re: About the Reuters article

#48

Post by jivatmanx »

brown9-2 wrote: post #34
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…

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.

But, few congressmen had any idea of the true extent of this; and Clapper has already admitted to being untruthful to them.

Which leaves the president. You can't believe that providing 1 bit of information every four years is sufficient to maintain a democracy, can you?

While there are allowed exceptions, a Republic operates on a default assumption of public access and transparency in government, and the liberty and privacy of the individual. The converse system, where there is a presumption of secrecy in government, and transparency of the individual, is a tyranny, as government, the people's servant, has become their master.

Re: About the Reuters article

#49

Post by bpatrianakos »

mhurron wrote: post #45
lectrick wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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." I don't see how this is not analogous to a longstanding marriage with a hidden affair. Would you reveal the affair thereby destroying the marriage (but gaining a greater measure of truth)? Or would you leave it in secret? I don't believe that a thing based partly on sec…

Well there is the simple difference that a marriage is not the Government.

That's not relevant here. The point is that in doing harm to the US government while attaining a higher level of truth one may inadvertently create more problems for its citizens than the original act itself causes.

In the marriage analogy, by revealing the affair you may get one partner to be honest going forward but the other partner may not forgive the first, leading to a divorce or a permanently strained relationship. The children may suffer as a result as well.

Imagine what might happen if damaging information were to get out- information more damaging than the NSA information itself. A healthy and informed debate and, if we're lucky, changes to the US security apparatus may take place but at the cost of putting the US in a weakened position influentially and economically. If you're not a US citizen this may seem like no big deal or a good lesson but for me, living in the US, I don't want to see that.

Re: About the Reuters article

#50

Post by brown9-2 »

gnosis wrote: post #41
brown9-2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ostensibly elected (or selected, if the election was decided through fraud) in a system where more than 40% of eligible voters are too disgusted, cynical, or apathetic to vote. In a system where elections are so influenced by money that billions are spent on advertising candidates. Where virtually all the discussion of the candidates is about their personalities and presentation (such as whether a candidate wore a fl…

Elections have plenty of problems. Do you have a better solution?
Post reply on HN