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

The Criminal N.S.A.

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 116 posts

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#21

Post by ferdo »

hobs wrote: post #15
ferdo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want opinion as news, I refer you to Fox News or Buzzfeed or Upworthy. All "news" is someone's, or a group of someones, opinion. There's no such thing as objective journalism. > chicken little reddit-level bullshit It's only been a couple of weeks since people became aware that the largest spy agency in the world is spying on pretty much anything they can get a bead on. Perhaps cutting people some slack unti…

In my opinion, there is about a 30 minute wait on the I9, and now in sports news, in my opinion the raiders beat the muskrats last night.... etc. There is definitely such a thing as reporting the facts, and just because there are levels of opinion doesn't mean that all outlets of journalism are somehow comparable. Fox News != Anyone with credibility.

> Fox News != Anyone with credibility.

There are very few mainstream sources that have a shred of credibility left. I see little qualitative difference between Fox and CNN, for instance. They only differ in style and delivery but their main entrees are still lies and rubberstamped government press releases.

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#22

Post by Volpe »

hobs wrote: post #15
ferdo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want opinion as news, I refer you to Fox News or Buzzfeed or Upworthy. All "news" is someone's, or a group of someones, opinion. There's no such thing as objective journalism. > chicken little reddit-level bullshit It's only been a couple of weeks since people became aware that the largest spy agency in the world is spying on pretty much anything they can get a bead on. Perhaps cutting people some slack unti…

In my opinion, there is about a 30 minute wait on the I9, and now in sports news, in my opinion the raiders beat the muskrats last night.... etc. There is definitely such a thing as reporting the facts, and just because there are levels of opinion doesn't mean that all outlets of journalism are somehow comparable. Fox News != Anyone with credibility.

Yes, but even the choice of facts expresses an opinion.

I could report how many murders were caused by black people, how many robberies by mexicans, and how much drugs by asians, Then how many illegal immigrants entered the country this month.

All fact, no opinion?

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#23

Post by anigbrowl »

dllthomas wrote: post #18
anigbrowl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts would rightly reject it as a political matter.

When I object to the government breaking the law against me, it's not "a political matter" - indeed, usually the courts are the appropriate venue.

You're not in a position to make that determination, and the judicial branch has traditionally taken a different view of this from yours. The question was whether people could sue, not whether they should be able to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#24

Post by tkahn6 »

Volpe wrote: post #22
hobs wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, there is about a 30 minute wait on the I9, and now in sports news, in my opinion the raiders beat the muskrats last night.... etc. There is definitely such a thing as reporting the facts, and just because there are levels of opinion doesn't mean that all outlets of journalism are somehow comparable. Fox News != Anyone with credibility.

Yes, but even the choice of facts expresses an opinion. I could report how many murders were caused by black people, how many robberies by mexicans, and how much drugs by asians, Then how many illegal immigrants entered the country this month. All fact, no opinion?

He anticipated this point and explicitly acknowledged there are levels of opinion.

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#25

Post by anigbrowl »

trevelyan wrote: post #20
anigbrowl wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for that interjection of sanity.

If you need a sanity check, visit the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/*/nytimes.com The last time this story was front page news for the NYT was June 23, when they reported on Hong Kong officials letting Snowden go. On June 22 they reported on Snowden being officially charged. And prior to that on June 20, when there was a story about the "complex reality" of Silicon Valley. All of these stories are symp…

Well, how dare they not put him on the front page as often as you would like. And I suppose because your analysis stops on June 20 I'm supposed to forget any reporting that they did on him in the weeks prior.

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#27

Post by tkahn6 »

trevelyan wrote: post #20
anigbrowl wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for that interjection of sanity.

If you need a sanity check, visit the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/*/nytimes.com The last time this story was front page news for the NYT was June 23, when they reported on Hong Kong officials letting Snowden go. On June 22 they reported on Snowden being officially charged. And prior to that on June 20, when there was a story about the "complex reality" of Silicon Valley. All of these stories are symp…

If you want 'critical' reporting, I highly recommend Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olberman or Glenn Beck. Pick whichever flavor you want.

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#28

Post by trevelyan »

anigbrowl wrote: post #25
trevelyan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need a sanity check, visit the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/*/nytimes.com The last time this story was front page news for the NYT was June 23, when they reported on Hong Kong officials letting Snowden go. On June 22 they reported on Snowden being officially charged. And prior to that on June 20, when there was a story about the "complex reality" of Silicon Valley. All of these stories are symp…

Well, how dare they not put him on the front page as often as you would like. And I suppose because your analysis stops on June 20 I'm supposed to forget any reporting that they did on him in the weeks prior.

I would personally prefer they stopped feeding the Snowden soap opera and focused instead on meaningful policy and governance questions, such as:

* did Congress intend to authorize warrantless surveillance when it passed the legislation being used by the NSA to justify its current policies and wrap them in a cloak of legality?

* which of the leaked materials w/r/t NSA surveillance can and should be considered highly-classified? What is the national security justification for keeping these materials out of public view?

* if Snowden was in a position of administrative privilege that gave him access to highly-sensitive materials without reasonable oversight, why was he employed by a private-sector company? What are the implications of this for FOIA requests, administrative costs, government transparency and checks against potential abuse? (seriously... what on earth is B.A. doing in this story?)

* do the stories released by the NSA to justify warrantless surveillance really justify the actions taken in the light of the law? i.e. is stopping a cab driver from sending 8k to Somalia really the sort of urgent and time-sensitive national security concern that should preclude the government from spending a day or two to get a targeted warrant?

Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on what a reasonable person would conclude on these questions, it seems self-evident that these questions are much more important than most of what the NYT has treated as front-page news on the subject matter.

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#29

Post by jacoblyles »

tkahn6 wrote: post #19
jacoblyles wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Times puts plenty of opinion on the front page. It just does so obliquely. I can't forget their headline for the IRS scandal: "I.R.S. Scandal Gives G.O.P. Issue to Seize On", as if the politicization of the government's taxing power were only regretful to the extent that it might slow down the Democratic Party's policy agenda.

As if that was the only headline or angle the NY Times displayed on the front page about that story as that story evolved. C'mon man.

Do you think that's an appropriate headline for the breaking front-page story about the scandal for an ostensibly objective news organization?

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#30

Post by andrewljohnson »

anigbrowl wrote: post #23
dllthomas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I object to the government breaking the law against me, it's not "a political matter" - indeed, usually the courts are the appropriate venue.

You're not in a position to make that determination, and the judicial branch has traditionally taken a different view of this from yours. The question was whether people could sue, not whether they should be able to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question

How are you construing an unconstitutional surveillance program as a political question?

I don't see how any of the Court Cases listed on the wikipedia article are relevant. These all seem to relate to truly political things, like which branch has what authority, or how districts are apportioned. The article only cites 5 areas the courts have clear precedent on - wars, treaties, gerrymandering, impeachment, as well as the Guarantee clause. The Guarantee clause relates to Article 4 though, not Amendment 4.

If we are construing this NSA wire-tapping as a war power, then we're in trouble, because we have now effectively agreed the written words of the Patriot Act have no meaning, and the constitution will never be applied uniformly to the executive.

Post reply on HN