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

211–220 of 311 posts

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#211

Post by socceroos »

dragonwriter wrote: post #180
mVChr wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because he's in exile in Russia - they'll use him to damage USA's international standing even if it's 50 years down the road.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#212

Post by aaaaabbbbbb »

tronracer wrote: post #200
pdeuchler wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Not even in the slightest. There will always be those who are marginalized on the edge of society. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to address those issues, but trying to reach some sort of utopia where everyone is perfectly included in society is delusional at best. On the other hand, the NSA revelations present a pretty clear path to totalitarianism for 100% of the population. It would be pretty hard to ar…

I don't see how a disorder[0] is intertwined with privacy. Are you referring to medical history? [0] Just in case someone thinks I'm making this up: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder

"Outing" yourself is a serious consideration for transpeople, because they have no idea how their families, social circles, or employers will respond once they are aware. Depending on where you live, the reaction could be anything from awkwardness, to ostracism, to physical violence. So there is a much greater need for them to maintain privacy and separate their normal lives" from their trans lives until (and if) they are ready to drop that bombshell.

Imagine you are a closeted transperson, and you go online to talk with people about your issues. Then one day, some major web corporation decides that real names are the way to eliminate online trolling, and retroactively attaches your real name to one of the accounts you were using to maintain your presence. Now all of a sudden, your entire family learns of your condition, when you had no intention of telling them at that time. Worst case scenario, you're a teenager or other dependent that wasn't planning to tell your family until you could support yourself, and your parents decide to kick you out of the house, making you homeless, or force you into therapy and onto antidepressant medication that leads to your suicide.

Because of these very justifiable fears, transpeople can be among the strongest proponents of privacy and online anonymity.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#214

Post by eli »

themeek wrote: post #182
eli wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of how long ago the law was passed, it intuitively makes sense that it's illegal to publicly disclose national security secrets. This talk of the history of the Espionage Act feels like a lot of hand waving. You make it sound like the government cherrypicked and misapplied some old law in order to stymie Snowden's defense. I don't believe there ever was (nor ever will be) a scenario where leaking national…

Please see the reference to Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers and the associated Supreme Court case where document leaking was protected by whistleblowing. You can also look at the COINTELPRO leaks. The Espionage Act has been used a total of 8 times, multiple times during the Obama Administration. (You can disagree but Lavabit had suite that it effectively was not allowed to bring. This is point I made above - Lavabit…

The Supreme Court case you refer to was called "New York Times vs US Government" and was a major victory against prior restraint of the press, but it didn't protect Ellsberg.

But I feel we've lost the point. Snowden can't argue that his actions were legal or warranted by the Constitution while he's a fugitive.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#215

Post by themeek »

eli wrote: post #171
electic wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, you're in the DC area. There's a colored perception there.

My experience (Seattle) is quite different. Also colored.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#216

Post by themeek »

wtbob wrote: post #192
rhino369 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A plea bargain would require him admitting wrongdoing. Even if you think he did good overall, he did so some wrong. Much of what he leaked is unambiguously legal and exactly the sort of thing that the NSA is supposed to be doing. Clearly legal:PPD-20, spying on China, Tempura/Upstream, Embassy spying, spying on Germany, spying on al Jeezera, various spying methods, etc. etc. etc. Murky: internet meta data program th…

> Illegal: telecom metadata, various personal abuses by employees Note that warrantless metadata collection is not illegal, per Smith v. Maryland.

To catch you up on the Snowden leaks the government was collecting a lot more than metadata.

It's also true that Smith v. Maryland is highly controversial. The Third Party Doctrine essentially states that you can't expect technology to provide you technology so long as the technology is bought or served by someone else. Via CALEA and the Stored Information Act, as well as 702 in FISA and a constellation of other legislation (now Freedom Act as well) third parties are forced to keep records on behalf of national security hawks.

In praxis this means that there is no manner by which I can communicate with someone in private anywhere except for in my or their house - and then if I willingly allow a third party product that has a listening device in my house provided by a third party it is the law that I can not expect those conversations to be private either.

Smith v. Maryland was in 1979. The world is a radically different place now that software has eaten the world. It is not a good precedent and akin to citing section 215 the way that NSA did.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#217

Post by themeek »

munin wrote: post #174
Someone1234 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But if they don't have to ask, were it to happen, it would be legal.

It's like the recent Smith-Mundt reforms. You no longer have to prevent propaganda from reaching the American public. You just have to not intend for it to reach the American public.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#218

Post by munin »

themeek wrote: post #217
munin wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

But if they don't have to ask, were it to happen, it would be legal. It's like the recent Smith-Mundt reforms. You no longer have to prevent propaganda from reaching the American public. You just have to not intend for it to reach the American public.

what? "if they change the law so that it would be legal then it would be legal" is I think how laws work?

oh you mean if material spontaneously appeared? yeah... good luck explaining that one

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#219

Post by tatterdemalion »

rosser wrote: post #128
rayiner wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I asked. My question is, can a reasonable person believe that the acceptance of transexuals in mainstream American society is a more important and newsworthy concern than NSA surveillance?

I know that's not exactly what you asked, but my response is relevant, if indirectly. That is to say, no, they can't. But mainstream news in the US isn't targeted at reasonable people — or, more strictly speaking, it isn't targeted at the reasonable parts of people. They're going for the visceral, emotional reaction from the audience, because that's what keeps people tuned in long enough to throw ads at their eyeball…

I think rayiner disagrees with you (and I think I do too). It is reasonable for someone to care more about the rights of trans people than to care about the surveillance statement.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#220

Post by dfgray »

meatysnapper wrote: post #110
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.

Much of America is concerned about only 3 things: 1) Unborn babies being killed 2) Gay people having anal sex 3) A bunch of sand-people having nuclear weapons (news flash, it's pretty obvious Iran has nukes, and has had them for years) :(

honestly, i'm much more concerned about the jawas than the sand people..
Post reply on HN