Live data from Hacker News

What Snowden really revealed

aljazeera.com

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#51
What's wrong with this logic is the presumption that the intelligence community would share any effective results of their work with the public. That would be just plain stupid. Rather than an endless argument over disclosing and justifying results, it is far simpler to simply say there aren't any. Yeah, image takes a hit but those people are much less concerned with image than with doing what they have been chartered to do.

Anyone to whom any of this (other than the capabilities) comes as any surprise at all is naive indeed and probably has no memory of the hostile spy era that spawned and justified it.

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#52

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?

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

That's what I'm saying. They've defined terrorism to be "political violence" and declared it to be unmitigated evil -- it's sleight of hand. Is a riot terrorism now? Is a revolution? Were the US soldiers who killed Nazis in WWII "terrorists"? It's propaganda. They're hypocritically condemning political violence while engaging in it. They're equating violence by foreign radicals against a country's people with violence by a country's people against its own corrupt government.

It's putting George Washington, Malcolm X and Osama bin Laden into the same category for the purposes of collective condemnation. The only way it makes for a useful method of categorization is if you're already in power and want to disenfranchise anyone without the political power within the existing system to make change, regardless of the legitimacy of their position.

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#53
post #35

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…

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.

There isn't a lot of room between saying it in a way that makes the threat clear to the politician and saying it in a way that doesn't make the threat clear to the New York Times reporter listening to the recording.

Also, the NSA could just kill you and make it look like a heart attack. As could the mafia, Goldman Sachs, Ted Bundy or AT&T. Doing the right thing is the right thing even if bad people aren't going to like it.

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#54
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…

The real reason they're collecting everything is not to fight terrorism, it's to provoke terrorism. More terrorism means more power to them.

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#55
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is exactly why that amendment exists. Instead, the vast majority of the individuals with the guns are far more upset that about protecting bigotry than protecting their rights. And the liberals on the side of rights, are generally less inclined to actually use guns.

Liberals are always on the side of increasing state power. eg. State run health care, mandatory state run schools (ban homeschooling), outlaw guns (increase state monopoly of force), mandatory vaccines (state dictates control over your health). Your positions are false and absurd.

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#56
post #7

At this point, it may well be impossible to shut down the NSA. I imagine every opposing politician gets visited by some agent at some point, showing him records of his own wrongdoings. Imagine every politician ever be forced to choose between the end of his career and opposing the NSA. How can we get out of this mess?

This would require a good amount of coordination and risk. These politicians are pretty well connected. And I think that if one politician was threatened, they'd likely bring in many others for support. As much as politicians may hate those of the opposing party -- being blackmailed by the NSA would likely go too far and would be the quickest way to have congress shutdown the powers of the NSA. No one in congress is…

That thought has crossed my mind, but I think the advantage of being well connected might not be enough.

A scenario: Imagine a powerful politician being approached by some shady guy in a trenchcoat who does not officially work for anyone. Shady guy produces some kind of material that, at best, is deeply embarrassing and personally damaging, and at worst, embroils said politician in a scandal that would cause professional damage, possibly even result in legal issues that this politician's power isn't enough to withstand.

Considering such a scandal is there to expose, said politician is probably not a paragon of virtue. Would this politician not bend to will of the shady guy? Even if he knew that shady guy is NSA, he could probably not prove it and exposing this knowledge would cause the damaging material to do it's job and only cast suspicion on the NSA.

I think the reason why the NSA could easily use information to blackmail politicians is that secrets are by definition kept hidden to as few people as possible. As such, these collectively powerful individuals can still be privately vulnerable, and are likely to opt for keeping their secrets over fighting some 'faceless' organization.

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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". While I can't speak for Sharlin or tptacek, when I point out that things have happened before, my intent is to prompt people to stop being merely outraged. It is all very nice to say that wrongs should be corrected, but it…

Speaking of history... I notice a great deal of arm-chair anger all around me combined with a strong lack of faith that anything can change. Most of my friends, even those with some political engagement, consider things like protests (peaceful or otherwise) completely ineffective and keep any kind of moral change limited to their personal lives. Do you have an idea of how common this kind of situation has been in the past? Is it a natural step in a growing anger, or is our situation somewhat special?

Slavoj Zizek seems to mention this issue in some form or other quite often. He argues, as far as I understand, that a big difference between 'us' and previous generations is that we seem to both disapprove and accept the status quo to an unprecedented degree. I've also heard others claim that we are a 'silent generation' that just kind of tries to be different in the private sphere, and leave it at that.

I don't know if this is true, but I do know we often consider our situation unique when even a cursory look at history shows that it isn't.

Re: What Snowden really revealed

#58
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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". While I can't speak for Sharlin or tptacek, when I point out that things have happened before, my intent is to prompt people to stop being merely outraged. It is all very nice to say that wrongs should be corrected, but it…

Speaking of history... I notice a great deal of arm-chair anger all around me combined with a strong lack of faith that anything can change. Most of my friends, even those with some political engagement, consider things like protests (peaceful or otherwise) completely ineffective and keep any kind of moral change limited to their personal lives. Do you have an idea of how common this kind of situation has been in the…

It's really hard to accurately gauge this kind of thing. If you go too far in the past, then the percentage of literate people drops too fast for us to have first-hand accounts of what people really thought of their contemporary policies. The accounts we have available are accounts from those who were affluent enough to bother with literacy: precisely the groups that would contest the power of the state. If you stick to the last few centuries, you simply don't have enough data.

I'm a liberal, which to me, includes being a meliorist. This means, roughly, that I believe that things get better, and that this is especially true over the long run. I think that the present day society is better than those in the past. So that's the context in which I say, "Yes, we can do something."

The silence of our generation comes, in part, from our multiculturality. Too many of "us" feel like we're irreconcilably different. Race, sex, industry, level of education, socioeconomic status, etc.: we see more ways in which we're different than in which we're the same. So we retreat behind facades of private domains, where the differences can be muted by not seeing them, and in a vicious cycle, reinforces our inability to come out into the public sphere and engage. We spend our days traveling from our private homes, along roadways where our interactions with others involve cursing and frustration, to private businesses, and so many of us need to be back home to sleep soon afterwards for another day of work. If your neighbor went on strike, would you even know or care?

I realize I didn't really answer the question, but I don't really have an answer.

Post reply on HN