More Americans see man who leaked NSA secrets as 'patriot' than traitor

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 1:30 PM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #27

dllthomas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"should the government know less than Google[?]" It's an interesting framing but I don't think a correct one. To the question itself, in some areas the government should absolutely know less than other groups/individuals. My wife should know a lot more about me than the government does, and she does very little data mining. To the framing, though, just as there's a tremendous difference between "follow that car" and…

Google mainly knows the things it tells it. Government should be the same. I tell the government about my taxes. They should know that because I gave them that information. I didn't give them my search information, so they should not have that without a court-approved search warrant. If they want my search history without one, they should ask me directly for it and I should have the right to deny them that informatio…

Post by jvictor118 » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 2:29 PM UTC

Sven7 wrote: post #39

JacksonGariety wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My (very liberal) mother asked me today if I had read David Brooks' piece on Snowden. I said I had and she told me that she agrees with the government surveillance and told me Snowden was a traitor to the American people. I said, "You support PRISM?!" She said, "What's PRISM?" People have no idea. All they know is Snowden, Snowden, Snowden...

I support PRISM and don't think Snowden is a traitor. Is that opinion acceptable? PRISM can't be dismantled, for the same reason no one on the planet has figured out how to dismantle nuclear arsenals. The other guy is doing it too.

Post by jvictor118 » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 2:38 PM UTC

stevewillows wrote: post #24

discostrings wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The short answer is law. But even with a good system, it seems very difficult to maintain. In the U.S., the idea was that its founding legal document, the Constitution, would put some very strict limits on the power of government. Thus, there would be many things the government could never do, like restrict one's freedom of speech or unreasonably search and seize a person's belongings or effects. A process was includ…

In essence we the people need to be Big Brother keeping an eye on the government while they spy on their siblings. Ultimately the US needs a sustainable system where the people elected to power aren't bound by financial need which in-turn forces them to pass and enforce laws that aren't good for the greater purpose of the people. But while we're at it, I'd like a pony. I'm in Canada, and we are in the same cycle of '…

Post by burntsushi » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 5:24 PM UTC

jstanley wrote: post #63

burntsushi wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Real opinion pieces that actually ask the hard questions like "should the government know less than Google" are all but ignored Maybe most people on HN don't consider that a hard question? At the very least, I consider it an ill-stated question. I think something a little more transparent would be better: at what point must a company forfeit all knowledge to the government? And when you put it that way, it really d…

What would your answer be? At what point do you think a company should be required to forfeit all knowledge to the government?

Post by res0nat0r » Thu, Jun 13, 2013, 9:02 PM UTC

discostrings wrote: post #36

res0nat0r wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a summary of the Guardian story and what has been changed: http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-th... "Updated June 10 to include a quote from a follow-up article in the Post directly contradicting its initial claims and another observation after the release of the leaker's identity."

That's a summary of the Washington Post story and what was changed. It looks like the Washington Post reporting of this was a disaster. Not only did they initially publish language that was more sweeping than the Guardian, but they had absolutely no backbone and edited their story when companies said the NSA slides were wrong. It seems the claims of the Guardian have not been edited, proven incorrect, or retracted. I…