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

221–230 of 311 posts

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#221

Post by astazangasta »

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) :(

Iran does not have nukes. It makes no sense for them to have nukes and keep that fact secret (see Dr. Strangelove).

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#222

Post by themeek »

eli wrote: post #214
themeek wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This characterization of the Ellsberg case misses its entire context. I'm not sure if you did that purposefully, but perhaps you think there are other reasons why he was acquitted.

I do agree we are off point. Snowden can't argue that his actions were legal or warranted by the Constitution while he's a fugitive. He also can't if he isn't given a fair trial: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9656310

But Eli, we agree. I too am insanely curious to see how this would be handled in court. I don't really have too strong opinions about Snowden himself - mostly I am concerned about the precedent the court case would set up and what it would communicate to other whistleblowers.

What sort of outcome do you want here? Would you like, as a result of the court case:

(A) A precedent whereby whistleblowers who share documents with the press that implicate the government in a scandal widely and bipartisanly disapproved of by the vast majority of American people are forgiven for their crimes on account of public good but where foreign spies who share documents with enemy intelligence can be charged

(B) A precedent whereby whistleblowers who share documents with the press that implicate the government in a scandal widely and bipartisanly disapproved of by the vast majority of American people are treated like foreign spies who share documents with enemy intelligence

[Or maybe you want some other precedent?]

I'm squarely in camp (A). Since law is a man made object, I say we get to making it possible for the legal landscape to allow the first precedent to be possible right away.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#223

Post by darklajid »

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…

And that seems to be based on

a) you agree that attacking foreign nations (in this case: electronically?) is fine, because .. they're not us

b) 'traitor' is really a concept that we should still consider. I mean.. What? You might visit this site and learn about cool things to order from China, order them online and yay! New toy. But the US government can try to infiltrate that country to 'be safe'??

(Note that the same thing is just as crazy from an enlightened point of view, if we're talking about the route back, China -> US. Or .. really, any bullshit like that)

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#224

Post by themeek »

munin wrote: post #218
themeek wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm confused by your response. I do not understand the point you are trying to communicate.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#225

Post by tzs »

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.

> If China did it to you would not think, "oh china, you rascally superpower"

What do you mean if China did it? They do do it. So does Russia. So does North Korea. So does the US.

There is essentially the cyber equivalent of the Cold War going on right now, and attempting to get into each other's systems, especially infrastructure systems like power plant control systems, is the equivalent of flying fighters provocatively close to someone else's border.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#226

Post by rayiner »

pdeuchler wrote: post #183
rayiner wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can one reasonably believe that acceptance of transsexuals in the U.S. is a much bigger deal than NSA surveillance?

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…

Intolerence of gays and transexuals is something that has extreme impact on a significant minority of the population right now. NSA spying may have an impact on 100% of the population in the future, or it might not. I think reasonable people can disagree as to the probability of "totalitarianism" and I think, instinctively, the public values that probability very low.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#227

Post by themeek »

astazangasta wrote: post #221
meatysnapper wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) :(

Iran does not have nukes. It makes no sense for them to have nukes and keep that fact secret (see Dr. Strangelove).

Well, Israel has nukes but on an official level 'doesn't have nukes' - the Dr. Strangelove analysis isn't fully complete. (It is true that everyone knows that Israel has nukes).

Iran does not have nuclear weapons but they are extremely close to having nuclear weapons. They have the knowledge, the material, etc such that if the sustained cooperation of other nations to sabotage their nuclear operations were to discontinue they would be nuclear capable very quickly. This is probably what the author intended - though it is dishonest to round it up the way he did.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#228

Post by Maxford_Maxford »

tosser-004 wrote: post #44
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.

Many, many more people view him as a traitor for exposing legal foreign intelligence programs. He obviously did it for what he thought were valid reasons, but that does make it right.

Is a law legal if there's no public knowledge of its legality?

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#229

Post by themeek »

tosser-004 wrote: post #44
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.

Many, many more people view him as a traitor for exposing legal foreign intelligence programs. He obviously did it for what he thought were valid reasons, but that does make it right.

Can you provide a citation for that? Every study I know on how American people writ large feel about Snowden show conclusively across the country and across party lines that the American people felt that what NSA did was wrong are thankful to Snowden for revealing it.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#230

Post by rhino369 »

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.

It's not unconstitutional, but it wasn't authorized by the Patriot Act §215 because it was sucking up data unrelated to any investigation.

I'm too lazy to find a link but the second circuit recently ruled on this.

Post reply on HN