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

What Snowden really revealed

aljazeera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#31

Post by polymatter »

Sharlin wrote: post #11
canadev wrote: post #6

I think this was well written and I enjoyed reading it. It brought some interesting information to my attention that I was not aware of (e.g. the porn habit blackmail scheme) - there have been so many articles about the leaks that despite them being important to me, I've made a conscious decision not to read them all. I really like the quote (that I can't find a source on) that he "defected from the American governme…

Using your powers to acquire sensitive information in order to blackmail political opponents is certainly nothing new - just ask J. Edgar Hoover.

I am trying to understand what its "newness" has to do with anything. Most crimes are not new, but we still prosecute. It sounds to me like you are suggesting that criminal justice is (or should be) based on how it would look as a CSI episode. (Sorry, simple blackmail is too bland a plot we can't prosecute, the audience will just sleep through it. Make it more fresh, have a twist at the end, something 'new').

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#32

Post by radiorental »

What Snowden _really_ revealed is that the goal of the terrorists has been achieved. The 2996 souls who lost the lives on 9/11 were unfortunate collateral damage.

The hysteria since and "hollowing out of our democracy" is the goal of a terrorist.

This is not to say things weren't peachy before the attack, but the US has lost so much moral standing, respect & power since due to our government's actions.

We should have kept calm and carried on, we did the complete opposite.

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#33

Post by teamonkey »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #22
gaius wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is precisely what the Founding Fathers intended to happen in this situation. Calling the militia!

Ironically, if citizens actually did that then the government officials would classify it as terrorism and use it as an excuse to crack down and demand new powers. And politicians need to learn not to be so pusillanimous. What do you think would happen if a politician came to the media and revealed that some spook had tried to blackmail him for proposing an anti-surveillance bill? It would cause the bill to pass and…

> would classify it as terrorism

It is terrorism. By definition: the use of violence and/or intimidation for political goals.

Perhaps you could argue that terrorism is a constitutional right?

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#35

Post by hershel »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #22
gaius wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is precisely what the Founding Fathers intended to happen in this situation. Calling the militia!

Ironically, if citizens actually did that then the government officials would classify it as terrorism and use it as an excuse to crack down and demand new powers. And politicians need to learn not to be so pusillanimous. What do you think would happen if a politician came to the media and revealed that some spook had tried to blackmail him for proposing an anti-surveillance bill? It would cause the bill to pass and…

I'm sure there are subtle ways to make this threat without making this threat. Like spread a rumor that it already happened and let people see the results.

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#36

Post by aristus »

erichocean wrote: post #20
Sharlin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using your powers to acquire sensitive information in order to blackmail political opponents is certainly nothing new - just ask J. Edgar Hoover.

Is there something special about "newness" when determining what our response should be to a particular "bad thing" (generically: evil)? It almost seems like posts like yours–something tptacek is perhaps the master of–are saying, perhaps subtly or even inadvertently, "this evil is not new, and therefore you should not oppose it ". My take is this: just because some humans who were born before me were unable to recogn…

It might also be a subtle hint to read up on history.

In the specific case of Hoover, the public did react. When Hoover died, ending decades of quiet terror, his 3rd in command was passed over for promotion to the top job. In retaliation he started leaking a lot of dirty laundry to the press, which caused a huge reaction that ultimately ended with the resignation of the president, huge shakeups of all spy agencies, and a giant crack in faith from which we've yet to recover.

One disgruntled spook with a fistful of secrets paralyzed all "four" branches of the government of the most powerful country in the world for over a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_(Watergate)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#37

Post by samstave »

jebblue wrote: post #34

The article is hosted on the same site that cooperates with terrorists, regardless how you feel about Snowden, pro or con: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/al-jazeera-still-promoting-gun...

If you are concerned with that then you should be just as concerned that the USG was providing arms to Syrian "rebels" and weapons to Mexican drug cartels in only the most recent examples of supportin terrorism.

The USG is basically a terrorist incubation machine.

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#38

Post by frostmatthew »

radiorental wrote: post #32

What Snowden _really_ revealed is that the goal of the terrorists has been achieved. The 2996 souls who lost the lives on 9/11 were unfortunate collateral damage. The hysteria since and "hollowing out of our democracy" is the goal of a terrorist. This is not to say things weren't peachy before the attack, but the US has lost so much moral standing, respect & power since due to our government's actions. We should have…

> The hysteria since and "hollowing out of our democracy" is the goal of a terrorist.

Exactly! "we will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms" - George W. Bush (9/12/01)

It's a pity he (and/or Obama) didn't actually follow through with that promise.

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#39

Post by platz »

teamonkey wrote: post #33
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, if citizens actually did that then the government officials would classify it as terrorism and use it as an excuse to crack down and demand new powers. And politicians need to learn not to be so pusillanimous. What do you think would happen if a politician came to the media and revealed that some spook had tried to blackmail him for proposing an anti-surveillance bill? It would cause the bill to pass and…

> would classify it as terrorism It is terrorism. By definition: the use of violence and/or intimidation for political goals. Perhaps you could argue that terrorism is a constitutional right?

There are at least 11 definitions of terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorisma

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#40

Post by DanielBMarkham »

DennisP wrote: post #28
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but once the instrumentation is in place to collect it, by Google or anybody else, it's fair game for various governments to use it to do just that. What would the alternative be? To have Google et al be above the law? You can't have it both ways. If you give up your data, you give up your data. You can't just give it up for special purposes. You don't get to choose. (And neither does Google or whoever is on the…

The spying goes far beyond webmail. Most people haven't agreed to have their phone calls tapped, or backdoors put into networking hardware and encryption standards.

My comment wasn't specifically about Google or webmail. That was simply an example. It's the principle of trading private information to another service in return for something that doesn't scale. Whether it's software, network infrastructure, web apps, etc -- the specific type of trade or vendor involved is not the point.
Post reply on HN