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

61–70 of 81 posts

Re: About the Reuters article

#61

Post by nitrogen »

maxerickson wrote: post #21
nitrogen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surely there is some crank website documenting all the newspapers that have been driven out of business by federal pressure. The major newspapers play silly access games, but just throwing out speculation that they are getting pressured is pointless.

Right, I'm not playing conspiracy theory or saying there is coercion, just responding to the comment that newspapers don't require any licensing. What with the IRS targeting political groups, you can't be too careful these days ;-).

Re: About the Reuters article

#62

Post by marshray »

sigil wrote: post #47
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.

Russia is not going to let harm come to Snowden in their airport or on their airplane. No one's going to stab him with a poisoned umbrella or anything.

Greenwald and co. have been consistent since the beginning that precautions had been taken with the trove of documents to ensure the reporting would not be suppressed were something to happen to Snowden. It's recently been sensationalized as a "dead man's switch", but it's not new info.

So I think you're right.

Look at how reflexive the US has been with all the diplomatic threats and goofups compared to Snowden's team's patient and careful tactics. The US hasn't been on the receiving end of effective hardball tactics in a long long time. It's taking a while to sink in that they need a better strategy than the standard prosecutorial bullying.

Re: About the Reuters article

#63

Post by tptacek »

marshray wrote: post #62
sigil wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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.

Russia is not going to let harm come to Snowden in their airport or on their airplane. No one's going to stab him with a poisoned umbrella or anything. Greenwald and co. have been consistent since the beginning that precautions had been taken with the trove of documents to ensure the reporting would not be suppressed were something to happen to Snowden. It's recently been sensationalized as a "dead man's switch", but…

Greenwald just said there was more unpublished material that would be harmful to the US were it to be published. It's right there in the article.

Re: About the Reuters article

#64

Post by marshray »

tptacek wrote: post #63
marshray wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is not going to let harm come to Snowden in their airport or on their airplane. No one's going to stab him with a poisoned umbrella or anything. Greenwald and co. have been consistent since the beginning that precautions had been taken with the trove of documents to ensure the reporting would not be suppressed were something to happen to Snowden. It's recently been sensationalized as a "dead man's switch", but…

Greenwald just said there was more unpublished material that would be harmful to the US were it to be published. It's right there in the article.

Yes, but he's been saying that since the very first articles and interviews on Snowden. This is not new information.

Re: About the Reuters article

#65

Post by stefanix »

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…

The biggest threat to the gov is quite possibly that Snowden's courage is contagious and it opens the flood gates on the more secret sides of power, stating with the intelligence and war industry.

It could potentially change how government currently works.

So far the actions of the Obama administration are quite consistent with walking a line between maximum deterrent and just not too much public uproar.

Re: About the Reuters article

#66

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: About the Reuters article

#67

Post by tptacek »

marshray wrote: post #64
tptacek wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenwald just said there was more unpublished material that would be harmful to the US were it to be published. It's right there in the article.

Yes, but he's been saying that since the very first articles and interviews on Snowden. This is not new information.

Discussing Greenwald is like playing Calvinball.

Re: About the Reuters article

#68

Post by marshray »

tptacek wrote: post #67
marshray wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but he's been saying that since the very first articles and interviews on Snowden. This is not new information.

Discussing Greenwald is like playing Calvinball.

I don't know what you're talking about. Maybe it's you.

Re: About the Reuters article

#69

Post by grandalf »

tptacek wrote: post #60
grandalf wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Rumsfeld's culpability for what happened in Iraq is extensive.

Perhaps, but only to the extent that Bush would remove him... and, if tried, to the extent that he violated laws. Bush stood behind him, happily letting him take flak from the media and political opponents for years.

The buck has to stop with the president. How depressing for our civilization that people get worked up blaming a lower level appointee whose job it was to be operationally in charge of dirty work that was fully supported by the president.

Post reply on HN