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

Let Snowden Come Home

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 311 posts

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#131

Post by [deleted] »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #103
aerique wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it is right what he did. Given how much dirt has been exposed do you really think there was another way to do this? What Snowden did is a prime example of civil disobedience: sometimes a country needs to be called out on what it's doing is wrong, no matter what the laws say. That said, whistleblowers are in for a rough time and usually get acknowledged for what they did when they're either too old or dead.

He painted himself into a corner, and that's on him. There are a myriad of other ways he could have done this, but his intent was clear to damage the government more so than expose government surveillance. Most of what he leaked has nothing to do with the government spying on its citizens. Most of the documents relate to how the US deals with its own international interests and how it protects those interests - right…

[deleted]

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#132

Post by dragonwriter »

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #96
mortehu wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the being known to a majority of the US population is a way too high bar. In a 2010 poll[1], only 59% knew the name of the vice president, as mentioned in a Greenwald article[2] about this issue. 1. http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-s... 2. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-in...

I've always hated how celebrities join up causes, but I'm now beginning to understand why - exposure to the masses. Maybe the biggest way to get Snowden's name out there and make eveyone listen is to get the Kardashians on board.

> I've always hated how celebrities join up causes

Why?

I can understand disliking some of the particular causes, or disliking the disproportionate attention given to celebrities, but why would you hate the fact that people who happen to be famous also advocate for causes they care about?

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#133

Post by joesmo »

Someone1234 wrote: post #21
fourply wrote: post #2

It is infuriating to see SO many articles, even from publications that can usually be trusted, referring to this legislation as "commendable" or "significant reform". It is far from it, and we can't expect the couch-dwellers to pay attention while the dying gasps of the 4th estate trumpet this kind of non-change.

And let's assume for a second that they did introduce actual reform. All that would happen is that they would go back to pre-9/11 spying on Americans. Let me explain how that worked... So pre-9/11 the NSA wasn't allowed to spy on Americans (in most cases), so instead they paid the UK's GCHQ to spy on Americans for them and then relayed the intelligence to the NSA for analysis. This was and still is a perfectly legal…

So just because we can't have zero spying, we should accept incredible levels of intrusion rather thank working to put more roadblocks in NSA's way?

That's not a rational argument.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#135

Post by gweinberg »

mason240 wrote: post #76
MrZongle2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A presidential pardon for Snowden won't come from the current occupant of the White House, and by the looks of the candidates so far he'll likely be waiting at least until 2020.

Rand Paul might pardon him.

Except he has no chance of winning. I'll vote for him anyway, but...

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#136

Post by dragonwriter »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #103
aerique wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it is right what he did. Given how much dirt has been exposed do you really think there was another way to do this? What Snowden did is a prime example of civil disobedience: sometimes a country needs to be called out on what it's doing is wrong, no matter what the laws say. That said, whistleblowers are in for a rough time and usually get acknowledged for what they did when they're either too old or dead.

He painted himself into a corner, and that's on him. There are a myriad of other ways he could have done this, but his intent was clear to damage the government more so than expose government surveillance. Most of what he leaked has nothing to do with the government spying on its citizens. Most of the documents relate to how the US deals with its own international interests and how it protects those interests - right…

> There are a myriad of other ways he could have done this

Can you be a little more specific in your armchair whistleblowing? Because we've seen other whistleblowers try to do it other ways -- on many of the same issues -- and fail.

> And let's be honest, it was something most people already knew about anyways.

It was something many people inside and outside of government, some of whom are now advocating -- or actually, in the case of members of Congress, taking -- action to rein it in, were directly dismissing previous reports of. It is not something everybody knew (the "everybody knew it already" line is something that defenders trotted out once enough details had come out that the "you're paranoid, there's no evidence anything like that is happening" line they'd been using with previous reports couldn't be maintained with even a shred of credibility.)

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#137

Post by themeek »

linkregister wrote: post #124
themeek wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people I meet seem to be under the persuasion that China is evil, corrupt and dictatorial - a unique wielder of force and propaganda. And they also do not know much about the America's support of Chinese civil unrest or the self-actualized pockets of civil unrest. Maybe there's a Venn Diagram of information bubble in there somewhere.

> And they also do not know much about the America's support of Chinese civil unrest Me either, can you give a recent example or two?

I don't have time for anything comprehensive, but if you feel like doing your own research look into:

- NGOs and CSOs the US has in China and their support of Civil Society; Civil Society is a comprehensive word that means signon to US standards, expectations, culture, economic norms, etc

- Source code (hosted on GitHub) that supports civil dissidents and websites (greatfirewall) that align with US narrative work that have US support or funding

- DoD MINERVA's study of housing crises in China and the possibility to use home ownership (surveillance of) for prediction or (propaganda of) nudging into unrest

- Broadcasting by the Board of Broadcasting Governors, such as VOA into China

- Anything you can find via FOIA requests from the Bureau of International Information Programs (this was born to take up responsibilities formerly in charge of by the late USIA)

If you want to get hypothetical there are number of suspicious events and coincidences - but these have no definitive link (smoking gun) pointing to the United States so they are excluded here.

It's important to note that NGOs do not mean that they are not related to government or the USG's national security objectives. ZunZuneo for example was set up through a series of NGOs that were ultimately CIA fronts.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#138

Post by sergiosgc »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #103
aerique wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it is right what he did. Given how much dirt has been exposed do you really think there was another way to do this? What Snowden did is a prime example of civil disobedience: sometimes a country needs to be called out on what it's doing is wrong, no matter what the laws say. That said, whistleblowers are in for a rough time and usually get acknowledged for what they did when they're either too old or dead.

He painted himself into a corner, and that's on him. There are a myriad of other ways he could have done this, but his intent was clear to damage the government more so than expose government surveillance. Most of what he leaked has nothing to do with the government spying on its citizens. Most of the documents relate to how the US deals with its own international interests and how it protects those interests - right…

> (...) his intent was clear to damage the government more so than expose government surveillance.

No it was not. His stated intent was to expose government surveillance in order to spark public discussion. His unstated intent, derived from his actions, was exactly the same.

Had he aimed at damaging the government, there were much more efficient -- for that effect -- ways of revealing the information.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#139

Post by yodsanklai »

tzs wrote: post #130

There was an interesting comment on Reddit pointing out some things often overlooked in these discussions [1]. People seem to forget that he leaked information on both illegal and legal foreign spying (which is what the NSA is supposed to be doing). The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not. Even Greenwald and Binney admit this. See the reddit comment for details and links to sources. Particularly…

> The former is arguably whistleblowing, but the latter is not.

It's not because something is technically legal that it's moral. For instance, killing civilians with drones, torturing people, or recording the whole world's communications may be legal according to some twisted laws, but it doesn't make it right. At least voters should have a clear view of such issues, and it's not coming from the US government.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#140

Post by Retric »

dragonwriter wrote: post #132
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always hated how celebrities join up causes, but I'm now beginning to understand why - exposure to the masses. Maybe the biggest way to get Snowden's name out there and make eveyone listen is to get the Kardashians on board.

> I've always hated how celebrities join up causes Why? I can understand disliking some of the particular causes, or disliking the disproportionate attention given to celebrities, but why would you hate the fact that people who happen to be famous also advocate for causes they care about?

Celebrities often use causes to further there career, which makes many of these things seem less important. Also, the often advocate pointless solutions which can be either pointless or even harmful.
Post reply on HN