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

171–180 of 311 posts

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#171

Post by eli »

electic wrote: post #85
hueving wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. All 12 of us would be fired up! More seriously, did you see the bit on John Oliver about Snowden? The majority of the US population have no idea who Snowden is. Be careful not to get caught up in our tech news bubble.

It is easy to also forget, however sad, that the people that do know of Snowden, and are familiar with what he did, think he is a traitor and should stand trial for his "crimes". [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-s...

I don't think he's a traitor but I do think he should stand trial. I think a lot of people probably feel that way.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#172

Post by soraminazuki »

Every time I see reports about US surveillance, I'm amazed how so many people seem to think that the US government can spy on anyone they like as long as they're not Americans. Are non-Americans denied their basic human rights or what?

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#173

Post by TeMPOraL »

guelo wrote: post #151
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…

It's wrong to break into foreign computers and spy on people. If China did it to you would not think, "oh china, you rascally superpower". You would be scared shitless and would contact the FBI. It's state sponsored terrorism. It's also, technically, an act of war.

No, it's just bog-standard espionage, something that everyone knows everybody does and everyone tries to prevent others from doing it on them (AKA. counterintelligence). If you go and start breaking things, then it can be considered an act of war.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#174

Post by munin »

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…

> This was and still is a perfectly legal loophole

no it isn't, EO12333 disallows the intelligence community from asking someone else to do something that they cannot do

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#175

Post by themartorana »

soraminazuki wrote: post #172

Every time I see reports about US surveillance, I'm amazed how so many people seem to think that the US government can spy on anyone they like as long as they're not Americans. Are non-Americans denied their basic human rights or what?

I'm pretty sure privacy is not considered a basic human right. For that matter, neither is freedom from water boarding, so YMMV.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#176

Post by alfiedotwtf »

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?

> Why?

Because most of the time it's celebrity endoresment - appeal to authority, without having authority. Why should I trust George Clooney's opinion on coffee let alone what he thinks about Darfur?

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#177

Post by themeek »

derefr wrote: post #165
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.

Note that I was talking about the information bubble within China , affecting Chinese citizens. The people within it are immune to Chinese government propaganda; the people outside of it (most of the rural population, for starters) are affected by the propaganda. The Chinese government doesn't care to attempt to change what Americans think about China; they know they won't be able to convince them of anything after s…

Here is a 2009 report in the first session of the 111th Congress on Chinese Propaganda targeting the United States.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/china/09_04_30_infl_ops....

America propagandizes China, China propagandizes America, China propagandizes China and America propagandizes America. Or, if you perfer, each country performs "Influence Operations", "Strategic Communications", "Psychological Operations".

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#178

Post by TeMPOraL »

ThomPete wrote: post #162
dragonwriter wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US law does not prohibit US intelligence services from spying on foreign countries. Quite the opposite. So, from a US perspective, NSA foreign intelligence gathering (specifically SIGINT gathering, its whole mandate) is, generally speaking, legal.

It's legal in the US not in the country its done to.

So if you get caught in the target country spying on them, you'll get prosecuted and then go to jail or get executed. If you don't, or if you spy remotely (SIGINT), you won't. Simple as that. Espionage is older than nation states and is legalized in countries doing the spying - that's why you have official intelligence agencies.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#179

Post by [deleted] »

mortehu wrote: post #89
hueving wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. All 12 of us would be fired up! More seriously, did you see the bit on John Oliver about Snowden? The majority of the US population have no idea who Snowden is. Be careful not to get caught up in our tech news bubble.

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...

[deleted]

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#180

Post by dragonwriter »

mVChr wrote: post #115
austinhutch wrote: post #6

If he were to come back to the USA and then subsequently be detained, I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. I am hoping if such a time comes, that there will be a historic level of demonstration advocating for his freedom.

More likely a few years after his return, when public attention has waned, he would die due to an unfortunate accident of some sort, perhaps a hit and run or the like. While this may sound like conspirilogic, I can site many similar instances of deaths of journalists and other instigators under mysterious circumstances in this country if necessary.

> More likely a few years after his return, when public attention has waned, he would die due to an unfortunate accident of some sort, perhaps a hit and run or the like.

Why wouldn't that be just as likely to happen to him while in exile once public attention has waned?

Post reply on HN