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

N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–148 of 148 posts

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#141

Post by nkurz »

tptacek wrote: post #140
dragonwriter wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems like you're saying, "sure, he's not helping Al Qaeda, but they could say he was". Mostly, I'm saying that "sure, they may have determined now that is theft was not to aid al-Qaeda, but they may have initially believed it was for that purpose; an NDAA detention on that basis would be supported by the text of the NDAA -- and uncontradicted by any public executive policy -- and consistent with the 'secret arr…

I think you read a little bit too much into my original comment and have gone on tilt.

> The 2012 NDAA policy you're citing requires the detainee to be a member of Al Qaeda.

The "tilt" appears to have been caused by your lack of acknowledgement that the quoted statement was inaccurate. Distinct from this particular instance, "dragonwriter" is asserting that contrary to your statement, the NDAA is legally applicable to a wider class of people than just members of al Qaeda.

Do you agree that one may be subject to the NDAA without being (or being even accused of being) a "member of al Qaeda" and that there are cases where the NDAA can be used as basis to "detain US citizens without counsel"? If so, please correct the tilt by acknowledging the correction. If not, perhaps further explain your position?

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#142

Post by tptacek »

nkurz wrote: post #141
tptacek wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you read a little bit too much into my original comment and have gone on tilt.

> The 2012 NDAA policy you're citing requires the detainee to be a member of Al Qaeda. The "tilt" appears to have been caused by your lack of acknowledgement that the quoted statement was inaccurate. Distinct from this particular instance, "dragonwriter" is asserting that contrary to your statement, the NDAA is legally applicable to a wider class of people than just members of al Qaeda. Do you agree that one may be s…

You make the list of organizational affiliations that can subject a US citizen to the indefinite detention provision of the 2012 NDAA and then decide for yourself how misleading my use of the term "Al Qaeda" was.

And, no, I do not agree with your second paragraph.

Finally: this has nothing to do with the comment I made upthread. Jose Padilla is literally the motivating example for the 2012 NDAA provision!

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#143

Post by cowardlydragon »

matheweis wrote: post #46
dguido wrote: post #17

Here's the criminal complaint. Check Paragraph 12, sounds like he just liked to take work home with him. I'm leaning on the side that this IS NOT ShadowBrokers. https://lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/staging/2016/Mart... EDIT: Yeah, Martin is not even being charged with unauthorized disclosure. Not ShadowBrokers, sorry to burst everyone's bubble.

Whilst trying to remain as politically neutral as possible, isn't this basically what Clinton did?

In the interests of neutrality, isn't this basically what the Bush administration did as well?

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#144

Post by Zigurd »

tptacek wrote: post #138
dragonwriter wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From what reporting anywhere are you generating the notion that this guy stole secrets in the aid of Al Qaeda I'm not. I'm saying if, at some stage of the investigation it was believed that he did, then even if that was later determined not to be true and regular criminal charges in the civilian justice system were determined to be appropriate, the NDAA detention provisions could have been applied at that earlier s…

This is a lot of text, but I'm not sure what the real argument is. It seems like you're saying, "sure, he's not helping Al Qaeda, but they could say he was". Well, they could say he was a member of Al Qaeda, too. What couldn't they do? If we want to stipulate a lawless government, why bother mentioning the NDAA at all? They could just drone strike him. The NDAA has nothing to do with this story. I don't know why you'…

You don't have to have a "lawless government" for a prosecutor to do something that seems wrong, but for which there is no penalty, if it would give him an advantage.

You just need ambitious, aggressive prosecutors.

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#145

Post by matheweis »

cowardlydragon wrote: post #143
matheweis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst trying to remain as politically neutral as possible, isn't this basically what Clinton did?

In the interests of neutrality, isn't this basically what the Bush administration did as well?

A little more context please? I think everyone is familiar with the FBI investigation of Clinton related to her handling of classified material that very recently occurred. We may be less familiar with a similar investigation that occurred 8-16 years ago...

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#146

Post by omginternets »

viraptor wrote: post #120
omginternets wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to show yourself, and this increases the chance of people reporting a strange man taking photos of a house. Yes, it's not cryptographic-level security, but it raises the costs of an attack. In the real world, that matters. Also consider that not all attacks are spy-vs-spy. This could be a case of 'keeping honest people honest', i.e.: making it sufficiently difficult to dissuade the majority of political acti…

> You have to show yourself, and this increases the chance of people reporting a strange man taking photos of a house. In the year of pokemon go players everywhere? And even then, who cares about a person with a mobile phone? We're a good decade after anyone is a "strange man" when taking photos anywhere. You don't even have to show yourself. Just order a cab and go through that street without stopping. > dissuade th…

It may or may not be effective, but I think this is the underlying principle.

Re: N.S.A. Contractor Arrested in Possible New Theft of Secrets

#148

Post by nkurz »

tptacek wrote: post #142
nkurz wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 2012 NDAA policy you're citing requires the detainee to be a member of Al Qaeda. The "tilt" appears to have been caused by your lack of acknowledgement that the quoted statement was inaccurate. Distinct from this particular instance, "dragonwriter" is asserting that contrary to your statement, the NDAA is legally applicable to a wider class of people than just members of al Qaeda. Do you agree that one may be s…

You make the list of organizational affiliations that can subject a US citizen to the indefinite detention provision of the 2012 NDAA and then decide for yourself how misleading my use of the term "Al Qaeda" was. And, no, I do not agree with your second paragraph. Finally: this has nothing to do with the comment I made upthread. Jose Padilla is literally the motivating example for the 2012 NDAA provision!

Thanks for the response. I don't know enough about the issue to agree or disagree with you personally. I merely hoped I understood it well enough to explain why 'dragonwriter' reacted as he did. From the outside, including the Taliban and "associated forces" seems like an important addition, especially if ever applied by a future administration guided by the text of the law rather than the origin story.
Post reply on HN