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

Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 178 posts

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#61

Post by pekk »

rantanplan wrote: post #48
karmacondon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edward Snowden seems like a good guy, but what he did was wrong. Betrayal and theft should not be condoned under any circumstances. He made the wrong choices and should be held accountable for them in a court of law. If someone I trusted unilaterally decided that I was breaking the law and then used that as a justification to steal documents from me and give them to journalists, I would be very upset. That's just wro…

> We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us Might want to rephrase that? Or be more specific about which "good" you're talking about and who's "all of us"?

In a system of laws, it is bad (unjust and in other ways problematic) to give particular people special exceptions. Does that tell you which "good" is being talked about? The "all of us" is all the people covered by a particular system of laws.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#62

Post by Spooky23 »

karmacondon wrote: post #42
jgrahamc wrote: post #6

I sometimes think that HN is pro-Snowden. Are there folks here who see him as less a hero more a villain?

Edward Snowden seems like a good guy, but what he did was wrong. Betrayal and theft should not be condoned under any circumstances. He made the wrong choices and should be held accountable for them in a court of law. If someone I trusted unilaterally decided that I was breaking the law and then used that as a justification to steal documents from me and give them to journalists, I would be very upset. That's just wro…

> We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us. We can't make exceptions because someone is popular or because we agree with their motives.

Oh yeah, like the former General turned CIA Director who provided classified material to his mistress/biographer and was able to avoid felony charges?

If the fate of US security was undermined by Snowden, we're fucked anyway. Everything revealed from a threat POV thus far has been predicted by security experts in the public domain since the 90s, and by the government itself in warnings about travel in China. I think the reaction to the Snowden documents makes it very clear that there is no bright line from a moral POV. The fact that the government hasn't really been able to discredit him is evidence in my mind that he is what he says he is.

Snowden will almost certainly end up imprisoned as part of some sort of deal with the Russians someday. History may bring clarity (assuming it isn't classified forever or destroyed), but some kangaroo court or "jury of peers" certainly won't.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#63

Post by UweSchmidt »

Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #43
jgrahamc wrote: post #6

I sometimes think that HN is pro-Snowden. Are there folks here who see him as less a hero more a villain?

> Are there folks here who see him as less a hero more a villain? I see him as neither hero nor villain. He has undertaken certain actions, such as leaking the NSA's illegal warrantless surveillance of Americans, that took a lot of courage and may result in positive changes if we really make use of what was leaked. For this he should be commended. He sacrificed his life in the US for this. Let's do what we can to mak…

> For instance, leaking how the US is spying on foreign nations, which is the whole reason for the NSA to exist.

Similarly how a military is designed to potentially fight against other nations, but is usually not doing that all time in an all-out fashion, intelligence agencies have their place but should not necessarily spy indiscriminately on everyone, all the time.

While we are mostly civilized enough not to have random troops roaming around like in the Thirty Years' War, the concept of using restraint in surveillance, or cyber warfare in general is not developed very much.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#64

Post by dkns »

kr4 wrote: post #36
blumkvist wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't say I see him as a villain, but definitely not a hero. I hold back my judgement, because we are just too far away to know what's going on. He did expose some pretty bad practices to the general public, but asylum in Russia afterwards? Are you kidding me? That just looks super fishy to anyone with at least an ounce of critical thought in his brain. Especially in the context of the Crimea debacle.

Crimea debacle? You should go read GlobalResearch.ca, CounterPunch.org, WSWS.org ETC – non-MSM news outlets to get the other side of the picture. Crimea is a very strategic area to get hold of which NATO wants to break into Russia through color revolutions ETC just because Putin refused to be US dog. When Ukraine democratic government was forcefully overthrown by a US-backed Nazi military coup what choice Russia had?…

> When Ukraine democratic government was forcefully overthrown by a US-backed Nazi military coup what choice Russia had?

Wait, wait, wait. When did this happen? Because I think I might've missed something.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#65

Post by rndmind »

karmacondon wrote: post #42
jgrahamc wrote: post #6

I sometimes think that HN is pro-Snowden. Are there folks here who see him as less a hero more a villain?

Edward Snowden seems like a good guy, but what he did was wrong. Betrayal and theft should not be condoned under any circumstances. He made the wrong choices and should be held accountable for them in a court of law. If someone I trusted unilaterally decided that I was breaking the law and then used that as a justification to steal documents from me and give them to journalists, I would be very upset. That's just wro…

"Those who do nothing while witnessing injustice and wrong-doing do worse than those who commit acts of injustice."

"When you see injustice and do nothing, you are an accomplice."

This is not about Edward Snowden, anyway, this is about the violation of our constitutional rights on a massive scale.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#66

Post by pekk »

toyg wrote: post #52
csandreasen wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We really don't know how "legitimate" those descriptions of people hacking equipment in transit were. That's actually a perfect example of what I was talking about. When Greenwald initially published the short blurb talking about intercepting routers, he didn't say who they were being used against, implying that anyone's router might be intercepted and backdoored - maybe even your own! When the full document was re…

> implying that anyone's router might be intercepted and backdoored - maybe even your own! But that's exactly the point -- it could be . We now know that a body with almost no oversight not just can but does backdoor US-produced equipment. This is not conspiracy-theory territory anymore, it's hard fact and anyone making decisions on procurement from now on will have to deal with it, not just "hard targets" -- because…

There is something wrong with reporting that is misleading, especially if that is intentional.

If you report that a specific thing is being done, that isn't the same as reporting that it "could be" done. If you don't know what I'm doing in my basement, it doesn't make it responsible to report that I am making bombs on the grounds that I "could be" doing so as far as you know.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#67

Post by atom-morgan »

dimino wrote: post #32
jgrahamc wrote: post #6

I sometimes think that HN is pro-Snowden. Are there folks here who see him as less a hero more a villain?

Almost everyone I talk to in person thinks Snowden is a criminal. These people believe the US government was caught doing something it shouldn't have, but Snowden himself is a bad guy to these folks because he's seen as betraying his country. I think HN is much more pro-Snowden than the general population is, but I think the general population doesn't deny the value of exposing what the US government did. I live in D…

> These people believe the US government was caught doing something it shouldn't have, but Snowden himself is a bad guy to these folks because he's seen as betraying his country.

That logic should scare the living hell out of people.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#68

Post by atom-morgan »

jordigh wrote: post #59
karmacondon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edward Snowden seems like a good guy, but what he did was wrong. Betrayal and theft should not be condoned under any circumstances. He made the wrong choices and should be held accountable for them in a court of law. If someone I trusted unilaterally decided that I was breaking the law and then used that as a justification to steal documents from me and give them to journalists, I would be very upset. That's just wro…

> We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us. Off the top of my head, here are some ways that laws have been broken: * By refusing to sit at the back of the bus. * By refusing to pay taxes on tea. * By housing Jewish refugees. * By helping runaway slaves. * By marrying someone of a different ethnicity than your own. * By declaring a country's independence. * By telling people w…

Exactly. A law being a law doesn't mean it's right.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#69

Post by deciplex »

striking wrote: post #54
marrs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagreement is a perfectly valid reason for downvoting someone. No. It isn't. How would you feel if people shut you out of a discussion because they disagreed with you? If someone says something you disagree with, debate them. If they say something factually incorrect, correct them. They may even thank you for it. And guess what, they may end up changing your mind, or correcting a mistake on your part. Actively seek…

This is a common complaint from people who get downvoted, while it's been held in the community by dang and pg that people should downvote whatever they feel should be downvoted. There's no specific prescription to what can or can't be. Disagreement is often a bad reason for downvoting someone, but in this case it's disagreement with someone who is lacking facts. Also note that the guidelines note that you shouldn't…

Well, while we're throwing around logical fallacies, you just made an appeal to authority. I don't care what dang or pg say - downvoting someone because you disagree with them is stupid.

That said, I did downvote blumkvist, firstly because he stated his opinion without really providing any reason for having it other than "oh we don't really know what's going on" (this is annoying, but everyone does it sometimes and it isn't such a big deal). But secondly and much more importantly, even after being asked to follow up on his assertion and have a discussion, he chose to continue on his anti-HN rant.

(And seriously, why is going to Russia "super fishy" when you've got US Congressmen suggesting on national fucking television that the CIA ought to assassinate you? And why do those Congressmen get a pass for saying it? They disgraced their office in doing so. Still like an answer for this, blumkvist.)

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#70

Post by rantanplan »

pekk wrote: post #61
rantanplan wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have a system of rules that must be enforced equally, for the good of all of us Might want to rephrase that? Or be more specific about which "good" you're talking about and who's "all of us"?

In a system of laws, it is bad (unjust and in other ways problematic) to give particular people special exceptions. Does that tell you which "good" is being talked about? The "all of us" is all the people covered by a particular system of laws.

Your statement diregards completely the reason we have laws in the first place.

The reason we create laws is not to obey them because they are laws. That would be stupid. If the laws are unjust, unethical or problematic for all but the powerful, they should be eliminated.

Also, the whole Snowden thing happened because the NSA was operating against the laws and because what they did was obviously unethical.

If my employer does something unlawful or unethical should I continue to cover for him, just because an employee must obey the orders of his/her employer?

That is obsurd.

Post reply on HN