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

Give Snowden his due: He made a surveillance debate possible

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Give Snowden his due: He made a surveillance debate possible

#51

Post by andrewfong »

samstave wrote: post #47
d23 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can never get pro-manning people to answer one simple question: what was he blowing the whistle on?

Unchecked, indiscriminate killing of civilians in Iraq. Proving that the military was over there operating outside the spirit of what we as a supposed free democratic and just society stand for. Pretty damn simple.

Most of the leaked information didn't concern that though. The most damning leak was the Collateral Murder video, and at most, it's more an example of negligence or confusion over the rules of engagement than indiscriminate killing of civilians.

Re: Give Snowden his due: He made a surveillance debate possible

#52

Post by mpyne »

ghshephard wrote: post #50
ihsw wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any person that looks at the two situations and compares them objectively would come to the same conclusion -- one was reckless and negligent while the other was intentional and targeted. At the risk of diminishing Manning's plight, I'm sure whistleblowers like Snowden are exactly the kind that Wikileaks wants supporting them. Also, it stands to reason that Manning's plight itself may have inspired Snowden.

I'm wondering if Manning's failure was going to Assange at WikiLeaks instead of Glen Greenwald at The Guardian? If there was a single thing that Snowden did better, it was showing good judgement in who he turned over his evidence to.

That's one of Manning's failures, yes. Assange used him and then hung him out to dry. Manning realized that for himself, but too late to make any difference.

It was for that reason I got worried (and remain worried) for Snowden once WikiLeaks swooped in to plant their flag. I'd trust HRW, EFF, ACLU, FSFE, or even just flying his father over there before I would trust WikiLeaks to always think in Snowden's best interests, and on not just their own. WikiLeaks already screwed up the asylum process with Ecuador (via Assange's ego) long enough to possibly maroon him in Moscow.

Glenn has his own issues IMO but I certainly get a better vibe from him regarding concern for the safety of his sources, and even concern for public safety compared to WikiLeaks.

Re: Give Snowden his due: He made a surveillance debate possible

#53

Post by mpyne »

revelation wrote: post #49
readme wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NSA surveillance foiled this potential terrorist and he is now incarcerated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najibullah_Zazi He was going to bomb NYC subways. Please, if you're going to participate in this so called "surveillance debate", stick to facts and refrain from hyperbole.

He wanted to build a bomb from acetone peroxide and detonate it in the subway . His only success in this grand plan would have been blowing himself up in his apartment as he closes the lid on his explosives, the friction between the lid and TCAP residue instantly detonating the mixture. (As always, their stupidity is our best protection, not the NSA)

Are they all dumb and stupid? If so then everyone who's been claiming that terrorists are already encrypting all their communications and using proper COMSEC are incorrect.

If they're not all dumb and stupid then simply sitting on our hands waiting for the next massive attack is folly, and more importantly it's something the American public won't long stand for.

The nation has a long history of action where their sensibilities are offended, even where it doesn't maximize the cost/benefit analysis. Guess when this was said: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!".

A President or Congressman who tells the public that their counterterrorism plan consists of simply relying on the fact that it's not like lots of people will die will be the first ones out of office. Even Rand Paul agrees with counterterroism for crying out loud, he argues that you should have specific targets and then collect instead of collect first and wait for targets as the NSA is doing now.

Re: Give Snowden his due: He made a surveillance debate possible

#54

Post by andrewfong »

samstave wrote: post #46
readme wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NSA surveillance foiled this potential terrorist and he is now incarcerated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najibullah_Zazi He was going to bomb NYC subways. Please, if you're going to participate in this so called "surveillance debate", stick to facts and refrain from hyperbole.

If you're going to participate in the "surveillance debate" don't be so stupidly myopic to argue only the ridiculous point that this keeps anyone safe from "terrorists". If the NSA can literally look into any electronic conversation between anyone, then why haven't they stopped a single drug cartel? Any premeditated murder? Why hasn't a single banister been brought to justice over their internal emails detailing deli…

The reason the NSA hasn't gone after anyone else is that it would probably be illegal to -- not that the program in general is legal, but it would be more blatantly illegal than simply focusing on groups affiliated with al-Qaeda.

The AUMF and constitutional case law give the executive branch a fair amount of discretion when it comes to national security. It's pretty hard to shoehorn drug cartels, bankers, and your run-of-the-mill murderers under national security. As such, prosecuting those folks using NSA-gathered evidence would force the NSA to reveal more about the program than it's comfortable doing.

Re: Give Snowden his due: He made a surveillance debate possible

#55

Post by samstave »

andrewfong wrote: post #54
samstave wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to participate in the "surveillance debate" don't be so stupidly myopic to argue only the ridiculous point that this keeps anyone safe from "terrorists". If the NSA can literally look into any electronic conversation between anyone, then why haven't they stopped a single drug cartel? Any premeditated murder? Why hasn't a single banister been brought to justice over their internal emails detailing deli…

The reason the NSA hasn't gone after anyone else is that it would probably be illegal to -- not that the program in general is legal, but it would be more blatantly illegal than simply focusing on groups affiliated with al-Qaeda. The AUMF and constitutional case law give the executive branch a fair amount of discretion when it comes to national security. It's pretty hard to shoehorn drug cartels, bankers, and your ru…

I'm pretty sure you e missed my point. I also think you fail to understand what is really going on here.

Re: Give Snowden his due: He made a surveillance debate possible

#56

Post by dllthomas »

Zigurd wrote: post #43
dllthomas wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me naive, but I would be surprised to learn that these systems are being used to overtly control the electoral process. So the way out of this mess is to talk to your friends and family and make sure they understand the issues and what is at stake, and make sure they do the same. Elect politicians who will do better - Obama promised and didn't deliver, but the issue only seemed to matter to a sliver of what were…

An ex-president told us that won't work. Maybe we should listen and realize the problem is very serious.

I don't disagree at all that the problem is very serious. "Talk and convince people" is a much more serious response than ranting about revolution or bitching on HN, and defeatism gets us nowhere. If you have further things to suggest, I'm all ears. I was out protesting on the 4th; I will be out again this 4th; "talk and convince people" isn't an argument for doing nothing, or for being lackadaisical about it. Get off your ass, engage with people, talk to them, and convince them first of the issue, and then that they need to do the same.

And nothing Carter said - I assume you are referring to Carter's statements - were in absolutes. The system can be broken, it can be much harder to fix things than it should be, and yet it still might be our best means of fixing things.

What is the alternative?

Re: Give Snowden his due: He made a surveillance debate possible

#57

Post by ISL »

zues wrote: post #20
bparsons wrote: post #8

Today was disheartening. The Guardian writes an expose on what should be the greatest political scandal of our lifetime- the fact that low level contractors and government employees can access all of our chat history, emails and browsing history. The response? No one on social media is really discussing it, CNN America only has a passing mention of it on their front page (buried near the bottom) and America goes on w…

This should have been the first release. Unfortunately the media and average citizens have a short attention span for continuing coverage of anything.. He should have led with this leak.

Who knows what may be released tomorrow? On the whole, the timing of these leaks has been excellent, and appears to be calculated to maximize their effect.

Re: Give Snowden his due: He made a surveillance debate possible

#58

Post by simoncion »

mpyne wrote: post #52
ghshephard wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering if Manning's failure was going to Assange at WikiLeaks instead of Glen Greenwald at The Guardian? If there was a single thing that Snowden did better, it was showing good judgement in who he turned over his evidence to.

That's one of Manning's failures, yes. Assange used him and then hung him out to dry. Manning realized that for himself, but too late to make any difference. It was for that reason I got worried (and remain worried) for Snowden once WikiLeaks swooped in to plant their flag. I'd trust HRW, EFF, ACLU, FSFE, or even just flying his father over there before I would trust WikiLeaks to always think in Snowden's best intere…

sigh

Assange didn't hang Manning out to dry, Adrian Lamo betrayed Manning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Lamo#WikiLeaks_and_Brad...

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Manning_and_Ad...

Re: Give Snowden his due: He made a surveillance debate possible

#59

Post by mpyne »

simoncion wrote: post #58
mpyne wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one of Manning's failures, yes. Assange used him and then hung him out to dry. Manning realized that for himself, but too late to make any difference. It was for that reason I got worried (and remain worried) for Snowden once WikiLeaks swooped in to plant their flag. I'd trust HRW, EFF, ACLU, FSFE, or even just flying his father over there before I would trust WikiLeaks to always think in Snowden's best intere…

sigh Assange didn't hang Manning out to dry, Adrian Lamo betrayed Manning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Lamo#WikiLeaks_and_Brad... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning#Manning_and_Ad...

I highly encourage you to go read Manning's statement that he gave as part of his guilty pleas before the trial, where he talks about the 'relationship' he thought he had with Assange, and the relationship he actually had with Assange.

Re: Give Snowden his due: He made a surveillance debate possible

#60

Post by grandalf »

mpyne wrote: post #53
revelation wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wanted to build a bomb from acetone peroxide and detonate it in the subway . His only success in this grand plan would have been blowing himself up in his apartment as he closes the lid on his explosives, the friction between the lid and TCAP residue instantly detonating the mixture. (As always, their stupidity is our best protection, not the NSA)

Are they all dumb and stupid? If so then everyone who's been claiming that terrorists are already encrypting all their communications and using proper COMSEC are incorrect. If they're not all dumb and stupid then simply sitting on our hands waiting for the next massive attack is folly, and more importantly it's something the American public won't long stand for. The nation has a long history of action where their sen…

It's not that they are all stupid, but a rational cost-benefit analysis would dictate that significantly less money be spent on so-called national defense and military programs than is spent today.

The reason we spend money on "anti-terror" stuff is b/c terrorism is actually a highly efficient/extreme form of propaganda messaging, and propaganda is something that states care very much about. It cuts to the core of the legitimacy and efficacy of the state as an institution and so what is being protected is institutional credibility, not human life.

Post reply on HN