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

Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

m.guardian.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 222 posts

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#191

Post by [deleted] »

inzax wrote: post #35
eli wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he comes off as naive and more than a little pompous, but I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. Either way, if he really wants the focus back on the documents, he should probably write fewer letters about his beliefs, his security, and his personal situation.

I totally disagree on slowing down his writing. think about the federalist papers for a second. Someone needed to wrote them to convince a nation about our beloved constitution. Since all eyes are on Snowden, he has the best ability to sway many minds about what he believes and what I believe to be right.

[deleted]

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#192

Post by mwerd »

twoodfin wrote: post #184
mwerd wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowden's claim regarding wiretapping Obama is corroborated by other NSA whisteblowers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-obama...

You're missing the point: Nobody's denying that with the right internal authorization, the NSA can tap any phone line they like. What's up for debate (since Snowden has provided no evidence) is the claim that Snowden could do it all by his lonesome, with no oversight or approval.

While I disagree with your point as well, I don't think it's at all the point to which I was responding. The question was about the credibility of his claims. I have not heard any other NSA whistleblower doubting his claims, and in fact they all seem to corroborate them.

Snowden directly addresses your point in his live chat: "More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-n...

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#193

Post by eli »

inzax wrote: post #35
eli wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he comes off as naive and more than a little pompous, but I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. Either way, if he really wants the focus back on the documents, he should probably write fewer letters about his beliefs, his security, and his personal situation.

I totally disagree on slowing down his writing. think about the federalist papers for a second. Someone needed to wrote them to convince a nation about our beloved constitution. Since all eyes are on Snowden, he has the best ability to sway many minds about what he believes and what I believe to be right.

I think you misread what I wrote.

I suggested he write fewer letters about his beliefs, his security, and his personal situation.

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#194

Post by alan_cx »

anigbrowl wrote: post #152
alan_cx wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see why you find this so "interesting". If Snowden lied or exaggerated, the USG would ensure that every media outlet shouted about if from the mountain tops until no one couldn't know. Snowden would be destroyed as a liar. If the USG lie or exaggerates, Snowden cannot ensure the same. Additionally, government is based on lies, lying is what government does. The ratio of power and information control is not…

If Snowden lied or exaggerated, the USG would ensure that every media outlet shouted about if from the mountain tops until no one couldn't know. That would not necessarily be good opsec. The government might consider that it's better to have the general public believe it's omniscient while being more realistic with diplomats; or it might simply decide that correcting specific inaccuracies would give too much informat…

Bias? Go on then, I would dearly love to know; which government is known for not lying to the public?

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#195

Post by 6d0debc071 »

ianterrell wrote: post #7
untog wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To offer an opposing view: I cannot be coerced into revealing that information, even under torture. That is a huge claim. I do not imagine that his training involved being tortured to make sure. If he's wrong, there could be dire consequences for the US. You might even say his ego is writing checks his body can't cash.

I interpret this as it's protected in such a way that any information he can give is not sufficient to access the documents. (copy pasted from my reply on another comment below)

But then... why wouldn't he say that more precisely?

If I had my documents encrypted with keys that I'd distributed to multiple parties, I'd be shouting it from the rooftops: "No point torturing me, the key is in three pieces and if I don't sign in every week the data will be destroyed so realistically you can't possibly seize all the pieces in the time-frame you'd require! Of course, if you can get all the pieces, just stick us all together in the same room and I promise to give you my piece, so no point torturing me then either."

Seems like there'd be a really strong incentive to have people know you had a mechanism that ensured it.

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#196

Post by anigbrowl »

ianterrell wrote: post #179
anigbrowl wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

widely disapproved of by the general public [citation needed]

Here are three polls that show between 41% and 58% disapproval: http://www.imediaethics.org/Blog/3984/Why_3_polls_on_nsa_sno... Sure, that's far from unanimous, but "widely disapproved of by the general public" doesn't seem like a terrible stretch. On the subject of polls, this article also shows the meta trends that this discussion is a part of: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/public-o...

I don't think supports the original claim at all.

FTA: All three pollsters asked their respondents how closely they had followed the NSA issue, and all three found just over a quarter of Americans following the issue “very closely,” while they found from about a third to half not paying close attention at all.

So, how could they report 90% or more of the public with a meaningful opinion about the NSA tracking program? The answer: They all used a “forced-choice” question format, which pressures respondents to make an on-the-spot decision, regardless of how committed they might be to that view. Thus, many people with no real views on the matter had to come up with one, and were thus highly influenced by the priming they had undergone during the interview itself.

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#197

Post by anigbrowl »

chc wrote: post #177
anigbrowl wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's certainly up to him to decide for himself, but I think third parties are quite free to form their own opinions about his credibility or integrity (which I rate at something like 6/10, in case you were wondering).

Yes, certainly! I just think it's irrational to discredit his factual claims on the basis that he is unwilling to stand trial. The truth of the statements "Snowden is telling the truth about our spy programs" and "Snowden is accurately assessing the potential for our justice system to offer him a favorable outcome" are not closely related.

I don't see it as a measurement of Snowden's honesty or integrity particularly. It could be that his judgment about the degree and nature of data collection is wrong. I try to avoid making guesses about people's motivations because there's really no way to measure that objectively and it's far too easy to project your own views onto the actions of someone else.

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#198

Post by anigbrowl »

aetherson wrote: post #182
anigbrowl wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I do hear a lot of people who reflexively disbelieve anything Obama says; also, you're making a terribly flawed analogy. A more appropriate one would be to say you didn't trust anything Obama said on the subject of drug policy because he used cocaine etc.

I hear a lot of people who reflexively disbelieve anything Obama says too: it's because they've decided he's a liar, not because he lacks the moral courage necessary to turn himself in for his admitted drug use. Digression: I do not myself care that Obama used drugs. I think those drugs should have been legal. I think it was courageous of Obama to admit to drug use even if he did so in a way that did not lead to lega…

I think you understood my point perfectly well. I don't feel like having a discussion where you keep changing the subject.

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#199

Post by anigbrowl »

alan_cx wrote: post #194
anigbrowl wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Snowden lied or exaggerated, the USG would ensure that every media outlet shouted about if from the mountain tops until no one couldn't know. That would not necessarily be good opsec. The government might consider that it's better to have the general public believe it's omniscient while being more realistic with diplomats; or it might simply decide that correcting specific inaccuracies would give too much informat…

Bias? Go on then, I would dearly love to know; which government is known for not lying to the public?

I like how you segue from 'government is based upon lies' to demanding I furnish you with an example of a government that has never, ever told a lie.As a matter of fact, I consider the US government quite truthful overall; it certainly lies some of the time, but thanks to things like FOIA laws it is one of the most transparent governing bodies on the planet.

However, you don't seem interested in my relativist/quantitative approach, based on your fondness for sweeping generalizations and requests for negative proof.

Re: Email exchange between Edward Snowden and former GOP Senator Gordon Humphrey

#200

Post by tghw »

twoodfin wrote: post #82
tghw wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Want to bother attempting a compelling argument to that effect?

Like all the bother the parent poster made to argue that Snowden is a hero?

I think the original post did that sufficiently.
Post reply on HN