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

Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 178 posts

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#131

Post by pdkl95 »

karmacondon wrote: post #42
jgrahamc wrote: post #6

I sometimes think that HN is pro-Snowden. Are there folks here who see him as less a hero more a villain?

Edward Snowden seems like a good guy, but what he did was wrong. Betrayal and theft should not be condoned under any circumstances. He made the wrong choices and should be held accountable for them in a court of law. If someone I trusted unilaterally decided that I was breaking the law and then used that as a justification to steal documents from me and give them to journalists, I would be very upset. That's just wro…

This isn't about who the NSA (or anybody else) chose to place their trust, and it certainly isn't about some right-wing-authoritarian[1] desire for social order (the world isn't going to descend into chaos if critical thinking starts taking over from blindly following orders.

This is about our duties to the great ideals of freedom that this country was founded upon... and the oath Snowden took[2] to defend the same. The question you should be asking is why isn't everybody else that took this oath doing something similar?

The oath in question: (emphasis added)

    I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will *support and defend the Constitution*
    of the United States against all enemies, foreign *and domestic*; that I will bear true faith
    and *allegiance to the same*; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
    or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the *duties of the office*
    on which I am about to enter.
Note that it does include a reference to the duties of the office. The problem is when those duties are in conflict with the first part of the oath, to "support and defend the Constitution". This oath is very clear about what you're supposed to prioritize ("I will bear... allegiance to the [Constitution]").

So no, Snowden's actions were not unethical, illegal, or immoral. In fact, it may be one of the few things anybody could do that is by definition patriotic. Any law he may have been in conflict - and certainly any duties he had to the NSA - are lower priorities than his defense of the constitution.

I do not envy anybody who is placed by his superiors into a situation that forces a choice between following those same superiors or following an oath to a greater ideal. That has to be one of the hardest decisions to make.

[1] meaning Bob Altemeyer's term, not the usual political meaning

[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/daniel-e...

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#132

Post by philwelch »

jordigh wrote: post #114
felipeerias wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anybody here is advocating for thoughtlessly dumping all state secrets in the open. The thing is, when given the power to eavesdrop into anyone's life without consequences, it takes a rather uncommon kind of person to do what Snowden did in order to make the public aware of what is going on. Because the most common behaviour when receiving that power would be to exploit and abuse it, regardless of wheth…

> I don't think anybody here is advocating for thoughtlessly dumping all state secrets in the open. I am. Why should a state have secrets? Rulers ought to be in power under the consent of the ruled. If the ruled don't even know what the rulers are doing, how can we be giving them consent for something we don't know about?

Because the state can't function without keeping some secrets, particularly in times of crisis or peril.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#133

Post by Veratyr »

ionised wrote: post #127
dimino wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost everyone I talk to in person thinks Snowden is a criminal. These people believe the US government was caught doing something it shouldn't have, but Snowden himself is a bad guy to these folks because he's seen as betraying his country. I think HN is much more pro-Snowden than the general population is, but I think the general population doesn't deny the value of exposing what the US government did. I live in D…

I get the impression that the general population doesn't actually fully understand what the government has done.

Watching through the John Oliver episode with Snowden [1], that's pretty clear.

To sum up the interviews with people they did in the episode:

- When asked if people knew who Snowden was, they often either had no clue or confused him with Julian Assange. They often associated him with Wikileaks, even to the point of believing him to be leading it.

- They often saw his actions as damaging the US and its troops in the Middle East.

- They near consistently had a negative view of him.

- When given a simple to understand explanation of what he revealed (the government can see your dick pics), nearly all of them were surprised, had no idea that it was true (and exactly what Snowden had shown us) and shared the view that the government shouldn't have that kind of power.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#134

Post by Lawtonfogle »

treetoppin wrote: post #123
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I tend to dislike the hero/villain dichotomy that is usually held up. I think the Snowden leaks have caused tremendous damage to the US geopolitically If I report someone for a crime and they are arrested, is the damage to their life my fault or their own?

I see the point you are trying to make, but the analogy misses some nuance. A question that captures more of the muddiness of this is "If I find out someone is committing a crime and I prove it by indiscriminately publishing their emails, is the embarrassment that is created when it is revealed they were having an affair my fault or their own?"

Even then, they choose to have the affair. While I do like privacy, I don't like blaming others for the consequences of exposing one's own misdeeds (even when they are not illegal).

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#135

Post by Lawtonfogle »

dimino wrote: post #113
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The possible precedent of not punishing leakers is far preferable to the actual precedent of giving the government a way to shield all of its wrongdoings.

I understand this sentiment, but I doubt you'd continue to hold it in the event of a leak that was much less beneficial for you in particular. Consider for a moment the fictional scenario that all US tax documents were leaked, or perhaps only the tax documents of folks whose names started with Warren B. We might (in this fictional scenario) find out about some very significant tax evasion on the part of Warren Buffet…

>who works for a middle school, loses his job because it's revealed he has AIDS and the parents petition his removal from the classroom.

Once again, blaming the leaker is blaming the wrong individual here.

There is already a cost to society of people not seeking treatment for mental health issues on the possibility the info might be leaked, not because the leak itself is a feared occurrence (in reality it is rare) but because of how irrational society reacts (especially when mental disorders are treated as moral failings).

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#136

Post by ikeboy »

jellicle wrote: post #125
ikeboy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Manning was in the military when he got access to the stuff he leaked.

What are you trying to say? That Snowden wouldn't end in Fort Leavenworth? You are correct. Snowden would end up in ADX Florence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence I'm not sure how that is an improvement.

The point was that Snowden wouldn't be judged by military standards, which is what allowed them to do what they did to Manning.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#137

Post by treetoppin »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #134
treetoppin wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the point you are trying to make, but the analogy misses some nuance. A question that captures more of the muddiness of this is "If I find out someone is committing a crime and I prove it by indiscriminately publishing their emails, is the embarrassment that is created when it is revealed they were having an affair my fault or their own?"

Even then, they choose to have the affair. While I do like privacy, I don't like blaming others for the consequences of exposing one's own misdeeds (even when they are not illegal).

Determining an acceptable level of collateral damage is a very, very tricky problem. In the Snowden case I think the damage that was done is acceptable in order to root out illegal activity, but that doesn't mean that collateral damage wasn't done, or that perhaps steps could have been taken to minimize that damage.

But ultimately, the calculus for what is acceptable when it comes to collateral damage is extraordinarily subjective. I don't know of any concrete way to judge it so I am usually forced into using my own value system as to what is important in my life.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#138

Post by jordigh »

philwelch wrote: post #132
jordigh wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think anybody here is advocating for thoughtlessly dumping all state secrets in the open. I am. Why should a state have secrets? Rulers ought to be in power under the consent of the ruled. If the ruled don't even know what the rulers are doing, how can we be giving them consent for something we don't know about?

Because the state can't function without keeping some secrets, particularly in times of crisis or peril.

Times of crisis and peril is pretty much the entire history of the US. The US has been in constant war since its creation.

This is not a good reason to be having secrets.

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#139

Post by jordigh »

dimino wrote: post #118
jordigh wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> specifically, the general precedent of allowing state secrets to be leaked without severe punishment seems harmful to any nation state. And is it also harmful to the citizens of that nation state? What are our rulers doing that they don't want us to know about? Why should we not know everything that they are doing?

There's no way to notify your population of an action without also notifying your enemies of that action. No argument exists, to my knowledge, that a nation-state can be successful without hiding some information from other nation-states, and therefore from its people, given my first sentence. It's one reason we elect representatives, in fact.

How about the nation state stops having secrets that are making enemies for itself?

Re: Snowden Sees Some Victories, from a Distance

#140

Post by marrs »

vinceguidry wrote: post #119
marrs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagreement is a perfectly valid reason for downvoting someone. No. It isn't. How would you feel if people shut you out of a discussion because they disagreed with you? If someone says something you disagree with, debate them. If they say something factually incorrect, correct them. They may even thank you for it. And guess what, they may end up changing your mind, or correcting a mistake on your part. Actively seek…

I get downvoted all the time, I do not feel as if the downvoters have shut me out of a discussion. I continue to post in the same threads, and usually I get more upvotes than downvotes. Over time the downvoted comments typically get upvoted to 0 or 1 or so. Downvotes are nothing more than another kind of participation in the discussion and should be treated as such.

Down-voting fades out the text of the comment, making it harder to read. I've had to modify the CSS of comments before now just to read what they say, only to find out that I found the post thought provoking or even insightful.

I have to do that enough that I'm thinking I might just write a bookmarklet to automate the process.

    Downvotes are nothing more than another kind of participation in the discussion and should be treated as such.
Participation is a constructive activity. This is more like graffitiing over someone's comment to make it invisible. As far as I'm concerned, that's shutting him out.
Post reply on HN