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

161–170 of 178 posts

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#161

Post by lewisl9029 »

treetoppin wrote: post #50
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?

I tend to dislike the hero/villain dichotomy that is usually held up. I think the Snowden leaks have caused tremendous damage to the US geopolitically, and I think the manner in which he is releasing the documents has elements of narcissism and carelessness in regards to the sensitivity of the information. That being said, Snowden probably would not have absconded with this massive trove of information if the US gove…

I also prefer a nuanced view to this issue.

Yes, Snowden's leaks did end up causing damage to US interests, and some would rightfully condemn him for it.

But we also need to keep in mind that there really wasn't any other viable option to shed light into these programs and raise public awareness (and yes, the public did absolutely need to be aware of these programs). The agencies were set up to hide information about their programs from the public at all costs and it was clear that traditional whistleblowing wasn't going to get any results.

I'd think another important consideration for Snowden when making this decision was that a more persistent effort at traditional whistleblowing from within the US could in fact have led to even more dire personal consequences.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#162

Post by csandreasen »

JupiterMoon wrote: post #35
csandreasen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a myth that keeps getting repeated. The US government didn't revoke his passport leaving him stranded in Russia, they revoked his passport the day before he left Hong Kong [1]. He traveled to Russia on what turned out to be an invalid travel document issued by the Ecuadorian embassy in London [2] (same one that Julian Assange is holed up in). [1] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-source-nsa-leaker-snowdens...…

How does this change the main point? (That he got stuck in Russia during transit due to invalid travel documents.)

The comment was:

> He only had to take asylum in Russia because the US revoked his passport and prevented him from going anywhere else.

That implies that it's the fault of the US government that he is currently in Russia (I think it also forwards the misconception that Snowden was in Russia when his passport was revoked). He didn't have to flee to Hong Kong to begin with. When the US government requested extradition and revoked his passport in order to keep him inside Hong Kong, he fled using what turned out to be an invalid travel document. Snowden has ended up in purely out of his own actions. The US isn't preventing him from traveling - he can walk down to the embassy at any time he wants and get a plane ticket home.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#163

Post by csandreasen »

dublinben wrote: post #34
csandreasen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a myth that keeps getting repeated. The US government didn't revoke his passport leaving him stranded in Russia, they revoked his passport the day before he left Hong Kong [1]. He traveled to Russia on what turned out to be an invalid travel document issued by the Ecuadorian embassy in London [2] (same one that Julian Assange is holed up in). [1] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-source-nsa-leaker-snowdens...…

According to that article, the Ecuadorean travel document was only revoked five days after it was used. Pretty much by definition, if your travel documents are accepted and let you travel, they are valid.

No, according to the article, it was issued by the Ecuadorian consul in London, who issued the document because he felt it was an emergency and he couldn't get in contact with the Ecuadorian president. The Ecuadorian president clarified several days later that the consulate in London did not have the authority to issue that document. The safe passage document wasn't revoked, it was never valid to begin with.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#164

Post by deciplex »

smtddr wrote: post #83
deciplex wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

>>I don't care what dang or pg say - downvoting someone because you disagree with them is stupid. Well... I don't care what you say, downvoting based on opinion is perfectly valid and I will continue to do so as I see fit. Especially when the opinion is based on assumptions that I believe has been proven false many times in the past and rehashing the debate on HN turns into a multi-page endless arguing.... kind like…

It leaves us with a bunch of otherwise well thought-out comments which, in spite of their quality, are hard to read for no reason other than the first person to bother to vote was having a bad day or is an idiot, etc.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#165

Post by philwelch »

jordigh wrote: post #138
philwelch wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the state can't function without keeping some secrets, particularly in times of crisis or peril.

Times of crisis and peril is pretty much the entire history of the US. The US has been in constant war since its creation. This is not a good reason to be having secrets.

A "zero secrets policy" is still not tenable. There are enough legitimate government uses for secrets. For example:

* Police are investigating a crime and have not made all details of the crime publicly known. Under questioning, a suspect independently corroborates these details, which he would not have known unless he was the perpetrator. The prosecution now has a stronger case.

* Three high-ranking members of ISIS are in fact CIA informants. They meet their CIA contact biweekly in a falafel shop in Mosul. The identities of the informants, their contact, and the falafel shop are all state secrets.

* A defense contractor is building a secret weapon that is decades ahead of competing powers. The design and specifications of this weapon are state secrets.

* The government maintains a health insurance system for the disabled, poor, and elderly.

* The military is performing operations somewhere in the world. Their exact order of battle and battle plan are secret.

* The military is planning an amphibious assault on Beachhead B. Using a ruse, they convince the enemy that they are instead landing at Beachhead A.

There are reasonable and good-intentioned debates to be had about state secrets, but to say there is never a legitimate purpose for them is the practical equivalent of anarchism.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#166

Post by jordigh »

philwelch wrote: post #165
jordigh wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Times of crisis and peril is pretty much the entire history of the US. The US has been in constant war since its creation. This is not a good reason to be having secrets.

A "zero secrets policy" is still not tenable. There are enough legitimate government uses for secrets. For example: * Police are investigating a crime and have not made all details of the crime publicly known. Under questioning, a suspect independently corroborates these details, which he would not have known unless he was the perpetrator. The prosecution now has a stronger case. * Three high-ranking members of ISIS…

> * Police are investigating a crime and have not made all details of the crime publicly known.

This isn't exactly the same as the government itself having secrets, but a secret police can generate a lot of problems, as you're doubtlessly aware.

> * The government maintains a health insurance system for the disabled, poor, and elderly.

These are not government secrets either. The secrecy is for people who are being served by the government, not for employees of the state.

> * Three high-ranking members of ISIS are in fact CIA informants

> * A defense contractor is building a secret weapon that is decades ahead of competing powers.

> * The military is performing operations somewhere in the world.

> * The military is planning an amphibious assault on Beachhead B.

These are militaristic problems created by having a state in constant war to begin with. These are webs of lies that have to be perpetuated due to initial lying.

As an outsider, it's really amazing how blind US citizens are to their own country's incessant war-mongering. They breed war with lies and have to maintain that war with lies.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#167

Post by philwelch »

jordigh wrote: post #166
philwelch wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "zero secrets policy" is still not tenable. There are enough legitimate government uses for secrets. For example: * Police are investigating a crime and have not made all details of the crime publicly known. Under questioning, a suspect independently corroborates these details, which he would not have known unless he was the perpetrator. The prosecution now has a stronger case. * Three high-ranking members of ISIS…

> * Police are investigating a crime and have not made all details of the crime publicly known. This isn't exactly the same as the government itself having secrets, but a secret police can generate a lot of problems, as you're doubtlessly aware. > * The government maintains a health insurance system for the disabled, poor, and elderly. These are not government secrets either. The secrecy is for people who are being s…

So are you a pacifist, then?

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#168

Post by jordigh »

philwelch wrote: post #167
jordigh wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * Police are investigating a crime and have not made all details of the crime publicly known. This isn't exactly the same as the government itself having secrets, but a secret police can generate a lot of problems, as you're doubtlessly aware. > * The government maintains a health insurance system for the disabled, poor, and elderly. These are not government secrets either. The secrecy is for people who are being s…

So are you a pacifist, then?

I'm not sure. Maybe. But I certainly don't believe the US's warmongering is defensive.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#169

Post by philwelch »

jordigh wrote: post #168
philwelch wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you a pacifist, then?

I'm not sure. Maybe. But I certainly don't believe the US's warmongering is defensive.

I never said that it was, but as recently as the 1940's, the US had a clear-cut moral imperative to engage in war, and that required the US government to hold secrets. (For instance, in my analogy of the amphibious assault, Beachhead B was Normandy and Beachhead A was Pas-de-Calais.)

If your theory of government doesn't allow for all the good things the US government has done in the past century, it's not a credible theory of government.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#170

Post by JupiterMoon »

csandreasen wrote: post #162
JupiterMoon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this change the main point? (That he got stuck in Russia during transit due to invalid travel documents.)

The comment was: > He only had to take asylum in Russia because the US revoked his passport and prevented him from going anywhere else. That implies that it's the fault of the US government that he is currently in Russia (I think it also forwards the misconception that Snowden was in Russia when his passport was revoked). He didn't have to flee to Hong Kong to begin with. When the US government requested extradition…

> he can walk down to the embassy at any time he wants and get a plane ticket home.

US English must have diverged quite a lot from UK English if 'home' now means 'prison'.

Post reply on HN