Let Snowden Come Home • Hacker News Board

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#241

Post by passwordreset » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 1:52 AM UTC

gertef wrote: post #122

mortehu wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are whistleblowers allowed to blow their whistle to anyone? US has several whistleblower protection laws[1], but it seems to me that if you want protection from the law, you should report to the correct instances first, and then escalate from there. From Wikipedia: > If the information that is being reported is classified, then the recipient must have a need-to-know and the recipient must hold a security clearance. 1…

When you are blowing the whistle on the President of the United States, who do you escalate to?

The press.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#242

Post by click170 » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 1:53 AM UTC

themeek wrote: post #216

wtbob wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 legi…

So this means anyone who buys the wrong Samsung smart TV is sacrificing their right to privacy in their own home? Scary.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#243

Post by jonnybgood » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 1:56 AM UTC

leohutson wrote: post #199

tallerholler wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Without context then sure it seems not right. In the real world, terrorism is real. Although I don't agree with anything you mentioned as a whole, if it is a consequence of the world I live in, I'm ok with that. So are plenty of other…

Why do you believe that giving the state these powers helps reduce the risk of terrorism? Can you point to an attack that has been prevented by information gained through torture? Obviously since the number of deaths caused by terrorism thus far is tiny, for terrorism to justify these actions that you agree would otherwise be unconscionable, the only conclusion you could make is that the security apparatus must be su…

> Do you believe that a significant number of deaths have been prevented, say a number close to those killed by ATV's* in the US each year?

I never understood these kind of questions. Don't you think there's a difference between premeditated murder and accidental death? You can't prevent people from accidentally doing stupid things and mishaps, you can only minimize it. Whereas premeditated murder can be prevented.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#244

Post by A_COMPUTER » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 2:08 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #55

sixQuarks wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sad thing is that most people in America know more about Bruce Jenner then they do Snowden.

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

In the abstract, absolutely. In these two specific instances, absolutely not, not if it were actually reasoned out. The publicity surrounding Jenner is a media phenomenon, and mostly symbolic. Reporting surrounding the specifics of the Patriot Act expiring and the USA Freedom Act passing are tangible and have wide consequences.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#245

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 2:21 AM UTC

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) :(

[deleted]

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#246

Post by pdeuchler » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 2:25 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #226

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…

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.

I don't disagree with the first sentence, but you can't deny the fact that the NSA has stored private information on most, if not all, American citizens.

Regardless, it's starting to sound like you're encouraging a false dichotomy. Like I said, it's not unreasonable to believe that by restricting the power of the NSA you're creating a society that would be more accepting of LGBTQ individuals. I can guarantee you a freer society is a more accepting society. At the same time it's kind of silly to talk about prioritizing positive change when realistically as modern individuals we probably have enough time and intelligence to devote support to more than one cause, but when you asked the question I wanted to make it clear that you cannot have the positive rights of marriage and equality without the negative right of privacy.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#247

Post by 3327 » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 2:26 AM UTC

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.

I would not. I am American and despite the fact that what I think he did was right, the manner he did it was wrong.

Domestic Spying is NOT OK.

International Spying IS OK.

He released dozens of files regarding international spying. Setting US efforts back dozens of years, endangering lives of US assets.

Sorry to say but that is treason.

Treason has a price.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#248

Post by leohutson » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 2:48 AM UTC

jonnybgood wrote: post #243

leohutson wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you believe that giving the state these powers helps reduce the risk of terrorism? Can you point to an attack that has been prevented by information gained through torture? Obviously since the number of deaths caused by terrorism thus far is tiny, for terrorism to justify these actions that you agree would otherwise be unconscionable, the only conclusion you could make is that the security apparatus must be su…

> Do you believe that a significant number of deaths have been prevented, say a number close to those killed by ATV's* in the US each year? I never understood these kind of questions. Don't you think there's a difference between premeditated murder and accidental death? You can't prevent people from accidentally doing stupid things and mishaps, you can only minimize it. Whereas premeditated murder can be prevented.

> You can't prevent people from accidentally doing stupid things and mishaps, you can only minimize it. Whereas premeditated murder can be prevented.

Can you please clarify the meaning of these statements.

1) ATV deaths are preventable some of the time, but premeditated murder is preventable all of the time.

2) ATV deaths are never preventable, but premeditated murder is preventable some of the time.

3) ATV deaths are preventable some of the time. Premeditated murder is preventable some of the time.

The only one that seems reasonable to me is option 3), which is not much of a distinction at all.

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#249

Post by rhizome » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 2:49 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #197

jenius wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I'd be significantly more likely to know Snowden's name than the vice president. I feel like he made a major impact on society that will be written about in history books for years to come. If you don't follow politics closely, the vice president is simply not relevant. The only way you'd know their name is by remembering it from the last presidential campaign, where the his and the president's names were e…

Given Joe Biden's long and fairly distinguished career in the Senate, I would think most adults should know who he is, at least in outline, and know that he's the Vice President. And I don't follow politics any more closely than I think any basically educated American should. But then, there's that "basically educated" thing, isn't it? Our aggressive willingness, as a society, to not know things about how it actually…

He's essentially a famous white person in the grand scheme of things. How many people in the US are even "basically educated?"

Re: Let Snowden Come Home

#250

Post by yyyyes » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 2:54 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #197

jenius wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I'd be significantly more likely to know Snowden's name than the vice president. I feel like he made a major impact on society that will be written about in history books for years to come. If you don't follow politics closely, the vice president is simply not relevant. The only way you'd know their name is by remembering it from the last presidential campaign, where the his and the president's names were e…

Given Joe Biden's long and fairly distinguished career in the Senate, I would think most adults should know who he is, at least in outline, and know that he's the Vice President. And I don't follow politics any more closely than I think any basically educated American should. But then, there's that "basically educated" thing, isn't it? Our aggressive willingness, as a society, to not know things about how it actually…

I disagree completely. Knowing Joe Biden's name is nothing more than trivia for 99% of Americans and has little to do with knowing "how it actually works".

I had to struggle to recall the name. The man is utterly unimportant to me, though I do hope he is eventually punished for the crimes of his administration.