Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn • Hacker News Board

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#271

Post by dragontamer » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 10:46 PM UTC

atlantic wrote: post #261

dragontamer wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there are. Ecuador has proven itself reliable with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. It proved itself reliable _long_ before Snowden decided to pull Chinese-specific information from the US Spy agency, fly to China, release Chinese information and (probably) beg to stay. Instead of going to a reliable country like Ecuador, he went to China. Snowden isn't a dumb guy either, he was clearly keeping up with the news.…

Snowden would not have been safe from kidnapping in South America. Once his location was known, he would have been as good as captured. Only Russia or China have the kind of military might that could deter the US from attempting to take him back by force.

All the while, Julian Assange hangs out at the Ecuador Embassy, ready for the taking.

FYI: Snowden was trying to get to Ecuador when Russia trapped him in Moscow.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#272

Post by happyscrappy » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 10:49 PM UTC

Lerc wrote: post #184

borgia wrote: post #3

It has already been covered over with tarp and the letting removed[1]. It's a wonderful piece of work with excellent sentiment behind it. Unfortunately it doesn't suit the government and mainstream media narrative, so I'm sure the act of its erection will be decried as liberal terrorism and vandalism, the piece taken down and Snowden-related news once again brushed over. [1] http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brookl…

Their point about the image of the bust remains. The fact that they covered the bust with a tarp itself creates an image with a message. Consider the mentality of obscuring the bust with something that is even uglier. It is not a statement on the aesthetics of the work. It is literally saying "You may not look upon this unsanctioned idea"

So your theory is that they covered it up so no one will talk about Snowden? That doesn't make sense.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#273

Post by jronald » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 10:51 PM UTC

MaysonL wrote: post #118

Estragon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure Snowden would be against it, if it stood a good chance of getting people talking about the upcoming reauthorization of the Patriot Act on June 1.

Hell yeah he would be for it, he was willing to stoop to an extended penis joke in his interview with John Oliver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M

My statement regarding approval was referencing the article: "The artists admit that Snowden probably wouldn’t approve of the project, since he never wanted the leaks to be about him, but they hope he’d understand why they did it."

Considering it was intended to be a temporary art installation, the MIT Hacks reference seems appropriate: " It is a traditional courtesy to leave a note or even engineering drawings behind, as an aid to safe de-installation of a hack."-nightworks

The difference is that this was intended to be temporary and decisions were made to ensure safe removal, which I appreciate, but no instructions were left to a staff, possibly unfamiliar with the removal procedures, leading to risk of damage to the monument.

I also think it unfair to assume the victims for which the memorial was for would believe this is a valid usage - while the theme is close, the artists are equating Prisoners of War losing their life in a situation they had no control over ( at that point), versus a situation very much in the hands of snowden (ignoring the injustices, there are and have been many decision open to him). Having researched a bit more, equating the situation of a single person, to the thousands (~11,500) who were effectively murdered due to the inhumane conditions of their captivity is distasteful at best.

This is an opinion I know, and I appreciate this is a civil conversation if unpopular. I urge more reading on the memorial itself and its reason.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#274

Post by dragontamer » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 10:52 PM UTC

dreamfactory2 wrote: post #253

dragontamer wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. Part of Snowden's treasure trove was him revealing to China about US hacking into Chinese Universities. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/06/22/u-s-hacked-... Snowden explicitly collected how the US was spying on China, went to China, and then "publicly" gave out those details. I think he was expecting the Chinese Government to take him in and protect him after the big reveal. For whatever reason…

It's a matter of record that the US prevented him travelling after he got to Hong Kong. Your original comment claims he was a double agent for China and Russia. Now you speculate that he was a failed wannabe Chinese asset. Wild speculations aside, you might want to consider the revelations on their own merits rather than a ham-fisted smear against the source. The fact remains that they have been confirmed as true and…

> It's a matter of record that the US prevented him travelling after he got to Hong Kong.

Also, bull!@#!. _CHINA_ prevented the US from traveling after he got to Hong Kong. If the US had its way, then Snowden would be in jail right now.

CHINA prevented him from traveling after he got to Hong Kong. The US had very little power over the whole issue at that point.

There are other parties at play here.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#275

Post by Buge » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 10:54 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #199

Buge wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google image search is not a face recognition engine or even a way to find different pictures of the same object. What it does is look for different versions (sizes and croppings) of the exact same picture, and if that fails, look for images with similar colors (Jack from the Shining).

It's actually pretty effective at face recognition when given actual faces: Obama: http://bit.ly/19Zkgur Putin: http://bit.ly/1aDAvyA Lindsay Lohan: http://bit.ly/19ZkFgk Matt Damon: http://bit.ly/1xYl5il

That only works because it found exact versions of that same picture on different websites and looked at the text of those sites and saw that the name "Barack Obama" was in the text of all those sites so it did an image search for "Barack Obama". Like I said: it searches for exact picture matches.

If you took your own picture of Obama that had never been posted online before and did a reverse image search, it wouldn't work.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#276

Post by karmacondon » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 11:01 PM UTC

cryoshon wrote: post #205

rhino369 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree morality and legality aren't the same thing. But we cannot have a personal morality exception to classified materials. I'm sure many people who work for the Department of Defense think the Iranian Nuclear deal is wrong. Should they be able to leak a bunch of classified information to sour it? I'm sure they'd believe making peace with, in their minds, genocidal maniacs with nukes is completely immoral. >Furthe…

We can, should, do, and must continue to have a strong and overriding sense of personal morality when dealing with government-- "just following orders" is not, has not, should not, and will never be an acceptable response to government wrongdoing as committed by the people who make up the organs of the government. Without Snowden, Ellsberg, Drake, Binney, Manning, and the other leakers, we would still be completely a…

You should have a strong and overriding sense of personal morality when dealing with government, but you should also keep in mind that your opinion is not the only one that counts, nor is your personal moral code necessarily "right". Democracy means that we must accept the will of the majority even when it conflicts with our own beliefs, even if history ends up judging us right and everyone else to be wrong. That's just part of living in a cooperative society.

As the GP comment pointed out, people knew about these NSA programs in particular before Snowden. I certainly did. Just because you weren't paying attention to these issues until they were attached to a charismatic personality doesn't mean that no one else had any knowledge of them.

Congress did indeed debate the details of the Patriot Act. Once again, just because you find it boring to watch CSPAN doesn't mean that the issues weren't debated in open forum. You're conflating your lack of awareness with a secrecy that didn't exist.

The FISA court operates how it's supposed to. It approves the majority of requests because prosecutors can thoroughly evaluate each case before bringing it before the court. They approve everything because prosecutors can request that cases be strengthened before they're even presented.

The bottom line here is that all branches of the government approved of these programs. That's how our system works. If you don't like it then propose a new system, potentially one where every decision has to live up to your personal moral code of righteousness. Until then, we'll stick with doing the best that we can to make the right decisions using the process outlined in the constitution.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#277

Post by aceperry » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 11:02 PM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #135

hristov wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. If it is something unauthorized they probably would have removed it in due time. I.e., they would have taken a couple of days to hire professionals to do it. Now they immediately cover it up so that no-one can see it while they arrange for its removal. Why? Obviously they do not want anyone to look at it before it is removed. But why not? It is certainly not offensive in any way. It may prove to be…

Think of it from the point of the park officer. If they notice it, and not cover it up, then it will be read as an implicit endorsement, and will generate an unending amount of gossip and headache. Why would they want it. The result would have been exactly the same if somebody put a bust of Hillary Clinton with letters "Clinton, 45th president of USA", even though Clinton would be a pretty safe choice for a lot of pe…

I doubt the park officers decided by themselves to cover up the bust. I'm sure that they had orders from higher up to do this.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#278

Post by dragontamer » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 11:06 PM UTC

rosser wrote: post #265

dragontamer wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the police can't get access to limited phone metadata with oversight, the solution is to give them a way to get limited phone metadata with oversight, not to give them access to all the phone metadata. Did you read the business records provision? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861 Read it again. It requires the agencies to check off with a Judge . It already _has_ oversight built into it. If somethi…

If you're seriously suggesting that FISA is some kind of check on the use/abuse of the government's surveillance powers, you're either a shill, or deluded.

And if that is where you stop your argument, then you aren't helpful at all.

Why don't you trust FISA? And if you don't trust it, what reforms to the FISA courts are you proposing?

Or are you just a lazy armchair protester who doesn't even think about how to improve the world around you? Hey look, I can fling insults at you too and be unhelpful!!

Seriously, the FISA system is documented, and it is part of the debate. Do you actually have an argument, or are you just gonna leave it there?

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#279

Post by dragontamer » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 11:08 PM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #255

dragontamer wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Swatting is a serious concern. How do you think we should solve the issue? Have the police sit around doing nothing because they don't have the legal tools to look at business metadata? I'm trying to bring up an actual issue here. For a hundred years, the "metadata" standard has applied to mail, telephone records, business records and so forth as "free game" for the Police. What makes the modern era so differen…

>How do you think we should solve the issue? Step 1. Police don't kick a person's door down and shoot everyone based upon a single unconfirmed report. >What makes the modern era so different that Police aren't allowed to look at metadata anymore? The volume of available metadata.

> Step 1. Police don't kick a person's door down and shoot everyone based upon a single unconfirmed report.

No one has died to Swatting yet, (thank goodness). But the success rate at catching swatters has been less than stellar.

I'm more concerned about the "catching swatters" part. Why the general police forces of the US seem unable to catch them bothers me greatly.

Re: Massive, Illicit Bust of Edward Snowden Stuck to a War Monument in Brooklyn

#280

Post by dragontamer » Mon, Apr 06, 2015, 11:13 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #266

dragontamer wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In addition, the NSA collects data before asking for permission. And I am doubtful that their oversight is effective. Snowden's first revealed document was the court order where the NSA / FBI was asking for permission from the FISA courts. Now I don't think you've even read Snowden's docs. > But I don't want to argue about it for hours. Fair enough. I hope that in our short discussion, you learned how things actual…

>Snowden's first revealed document Okay I'll be more specific. Without specific permission pertaining to a specific case, they collect whatever they feel like to sort out later. I don't like that. >I hope that in our short discussion, you learned how things actually work. I learned there has been more access to metadata than I previously thought, but my main worry is and has been the exploding amount of metadata and…

I know we want to close the discussion, but let me note one more thing.

> Okay I'll be more specific. Without specific permission pertaining to a specific case, they collect whatever they feel like to sort out later. I don't like that.

How do you expect the Police to go after a swatter then? The creation of 'nameless warrants' is looked down upon in general, and is grossly illegal in many jurisdictions. You cannot get a warrant unless a specific person is named.

Without a warrant, police cannot continue investigating. Police need access to the metadata to get a name so that they can get a warrant.

I know John Doe warrants exist, but their use is highly criticized. And it should be! We can't have the police getting nameless warrants regularly. With that said, we have to give the Police enough room to maneuver so that they can build a case before they are granted the high-powers of a warrant.

The Fourth Amendment promises _due process_. Metadata, in my opinion is a "reasonable" search. Or at least, we should _define_ metadata as the part that can be reasonably searched. (After all, not all data is innately private. The data that is "public" should be easily searched by the Police without warrants). The debate really should be about determining which bits of data are "public" and which bits aren't.