Hacker News Reader

Other members have already pointed out that you haven't stated any specifics, so I won't repeat that.

I'm curious as to why you felt that Snowden hasn't strengthened what you call "people power"? Do you really think there was any way he could have alerted Americans and the rest of the world to the scale of government spying by being "responsible"? This when senior government officials thought nothing of lying outright to lawmakers and judges - people who are supposed to act as a check on government power? I'd really like to hear what you feel might have been a more responsible version.

I also did read your linked comment about living under the Taiwanese dictatorship. You say:

>> I assumed that all my postal mail, domestic or foreign, was read by the ruling party's secret police as part of the delivery process

Decades later we have democratic governments around the world doing the same - reading and storing all our electronic communications - instead of dictatorships. And we know this thanks to Snowden.

I appreciate your nuanced opinion, which I've tried to fully understand as you've posted about it in the past. It stands in contrast to my admittedly hardline position. I do uncompromisingly see Snowden as a hero. While you consider America's actions in the context of other governments such as Russia and China and how they spy on their citizens, I want America to lead the way, to be role model so to speak for the rest of the world. When America treats people well, it benefits everyone; conversely, when America acts hypocritically, when we spy on or torture innocents, every despot on the planet sees that and can say "Well America does it," and have firm ground to stand on. That's why we need people like Snowden, to keep the American government in line, because historically that's how we have world peace. And also, to be a little more selfish, because I live here.

> every despot on the planet sees that and can say "Well America does it," and have firm ground to stand on. That's why we need people like Snowden, to keep the American government in line...

Whether styled as a despot or not, when it comes to the exercise and maintenance of power, nobody is ever saying anything remotely like 'well America does it' - it's just irrelevant. It's never a moral question, but one of what power can be assumed (both at home and abroad). That's the interesting thing about Snowden - he just acted and took the upper hand. (And even more so that he further consolidated by maintaining it, despite huge efforts to bring him down a peg or two.)

I am not American and I will second this. A lot of American policies and operating procedures tends to get pushed onto other democracies since 'that is the way we do things at home'. Your horrible patents system is one of them. If the US tightens up their regulations on citizen surveillance and privacy, the citizens of other democracies DO get a boost.

The NSA is spying unnecessarily. More people die in DUIs in the US each year than in terrorism since 2001 (since ever possibly?) but we don't routinely monitor text messages for signs of drunkenness or even mandate breathalyzers as you leave the bar. The point is that we have dedicated billions of dollars and trashed civil liberties of Americans over terrorism. Well, I want to know we are spying on the appropriate people and making gains from our losses. Let's not even talk about Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, drones, etc. I mean we could go on for hours discussing how 9/11 was our own political mistake from the 80's come to bite us back.

Sure, I don't have a right to know what compounds are in secret paints on our stealth fighters or how many nucs are kept in our subs... but I am certain that I have the right to know that I am secure in my communications domestic AND ABROAD from the US gov't unless a narrow warrant has been issued under evidence-support suspicion of wrong-doing. If you believe that this is not the case, then you would happily sell America to the tyrants under the guise of security.

The argument that "X happens more frequently than terrorism, and we don't do Y to stop that" is a bit weak.

Take a look at what happened during 9/11: - stock market (DJIA) dropped 20% - all airline transportation ceased for days - a huge negative impact on economic activity

In other words, 3000 deaths due to DUIs is not the same as 3000 deaths due to terrorism. The very definition of terrorism is a disruption of the normal functioning of society.

Now I'm certainly not arguing that the USGOV has been justified in all that has happened since 9/11. However, I am saying that your argument makes no sense.

I agree and it is something of a strawman that I put up, but my other points stand.

This is the cowards approach. Take the time and rebuttal properly, or don't reply at all. Just because you're "e-popular" on HN doesn't give you a free pass for weak arguments.

I agree. Saying "well, I can tell you for a fact that you are wrong, but I don't have time right now" is a very poor form of debate. Hopefully he elaborates soon, as I think he's a very intelligent poster!

A proper rebuttal would probably warrant at least something of blog post length, if not an actual essay.

If you try to make some shorter reply in this audience then it would simply be hyperanalyzed to find every little chink on the armor of the logical argument (and failing that, simply to start making emotional appeals that ignore logic completely).

It's pretty funny when the "chilling effect" applies in the opposite direction IMHO; it's something I've also struggled with IRT the Snowden Saga.

BTW, I read the Australian article and it doesn't tackle the real issue. I don't care if the NSA is spying on foreign citizens, I care if the NSA has even gathered one iota of data about me, when there is no suspicion that I specifically have done anything wrong. You have a J.D., so you can appreciate how controversial even something like a DUI checkpoint has been in the US. I would rather let criminals go free then let even one innocent man end up in jail. The mandate of our constitution demands the most liberal interpretation of civil liberties. For Americans, this kind of data collection should be illegal. I don't care if people want to call Snowden a hero or not, but he did the 'right' thing and nothing you or your suggested article present are satisfying arguments:

1. They don't address spying on Americans, specifically.

2. They don't present specific evidence of how this intelligence saved specific lives.

The recent New York District Court decision on ACLU v. NSA presents evidence pertaining to 2, at least as far as the phone metadata collection program is concerned.

My guess is that you work at Palantir or other natsec startup. That's all I have time to say at the moment.*

*Isn't it cool to make this kind of outlandish comments without any kind of proof to back them up?

I sincerely hope you elaborate more, because as a non-American I feel that the world will now have a chance to become a much better place and Snowden did remarkable thing, which apart from giving a sort of CV you don't address.

I think that E. Snowden was in a position to judge which path is right. I trust that he knows better than you, me and probably others what would have happened if he tried to go public without ever leaving the USA.

I read your profile. One reaction was that because of your experiences, you might have already been desensitized to having your rights violated in such a manner. It was more of a shock to us who didn't expect our google searches to be monitored, but now we are all also becoming desensitized.

I believe that trust is a necessary part of any life power structure, and that privacy is a part of that trust. The rights granted by those in power to those below are levers that help the system continue to work in service of the whole. The five eyes privacy violations are an unbalancing act which screws with human power in the event that something goes wrong and we have to repair or restructure the executive organ of our planet. Giving up privacy in this manner is giving up future self control in conditions that cannot be predicted. We should maintain ability to overthrow power structure at any time, we just shouldn't want to (or worse, need to without knowing we need to). I'm not giving up the levers of a system i've amplified with authority over my self. Having all actions of my life known by that system is giving up levers.

Why do you like that theaustralian article so much when it supports lines like "you can't have 100 per cent security as well as 100 per cent privacy in the digital age" and "NSA chief Keith Alexander revealed that the NSA programs leaked by Snowden had helped thwart more than 50 terror plots"?

> Why do you like that theaustralian article so much when it supports lines like "you can't have 100 per cent security as well as 100 per cent privacy in the digital age" and "NSA chief Keith Alexander revealed that the NSA programs leaked by Snowden had helped thwart more than 50 terror plots"?

What's incorrect about either line?

Here's a good article on the "54 attacks" line, which was actually cited in the "likely unconstitutional" ruling: http://www.propublica.org/article/claim-on-attacks-thwarted-...

The Obama 100%/100% thing is correct but privacy is a right. The line is not an excuse to take my privacy away without asking me. You can't drop my percentage without giving me opportunity to dissent or without my knowing about it. To do this is to make decisions about me and for me that reduce my power, it means i'm not free and becoming less free.

The article is good but it doesn't dismantle the argument either, it clarifies it. That's nice and all, but ProPublica makes as many guesses about what possibly could be done using only non-phone metadata sources as NSA makes guesses about the absolute need for it.

Remember that the U.S. Intelligence Community "could have" been tipped off to 9/11 beforehand, but it didn't happen. ProPublica saying that FBI "could have" caught an email or that a magical court order to divulge U.S. phone numbers calling al-Shabab in Somalia "could have" found Basaaly Moalin in San Diego is pure speculation too, and doesn't exactly jive well with the historical evidence that the Intelligence Community finds it difficult to identify plots beforehand.

As far as your opportunity to dissent, you've had it and continue to have it. Unless you think every governmental action should be put to mass referendum then you go through your elected representative. After all the phone metadata program was specifically baked into public law several times over in the past decade, and it was done so by our representatives. It didn't simply appear out of nowhere.

If the alternative to tyranny turns out to be illiberal democracy (where many of the same things that people hate about tyrannical systems take place- unrestricted government spying, torture, government corruption, breakdown of rule of law, militarism), then what's the point?

I think it's far more important to figure out how to prevent liberal democracies from turning into illiberal democracies, and how to reverse such changes, than to try and topple tyrannical systems as things stand right now. The inertia afforded to democracies by the idea that they enjoy a moral legitimacy that no other form of government possesses makes fixing a broken democracy a lot harder than turning a broken dictatorship into a democracy. We also have far more successful examples of the latter than the former.

I just have to say that I very strongly dislike this type of comment.

First, you disagree with the poster, and proceed to make a few claims "I don't think Snowden engaged in responsible disclosure", [Snowden was] "ultimately mistakenly misguided", and "mistaken about what the overall course of his actions has done for the world as a whole."

After those claims though, you bow out with "That's all I have time to say about this at the moment" (and of course you lead the comment with a similar "It would take ...more time than I have with my work responsibilities today"

You took enough time to write a 1335 character comment, but not a single bit of it was about backing up or explaining the logic behind a single one of your claims. If you don't have time to get into a discussion, don't, and don't expect others to respect such a one-directional attempt at conversation.

Now, I will make a small try at explaining why I think you are wrong.

"I don't think Snowden engaged in responsible disclosure"

I think Snowden did the best he could given the restrictions he was under. He took the data over a certain amount of time, and given the amount of documents it is infeasible that he could purge truly sensitive information withing a decent timeframe, therefore he did the next best thing, which was to contact respectable news outlets and give them the documents on the condition that they use their resources to do what he could not. He gave all documents up (minus a supposed insurance file) and sought political asylum, a respected political tradition since the days of Hammurabi. I really can't fathom any better course of action for the situation, but if you would like to suggest one please go ahead.

""mistaken about what the overall course of his actions has done for the world as a whole."

I'm not sure, but to me this seems like it might allude to a claim that the revelations have made the US/World weaker. That simply isn't true. The weaknesses are already there, we the public are simply just learning about them. Could that create a political weakness? Yes indeed, but that is irrelevant because it was the NSA and other powers that be that actually performed the acts that created that weakness, not Snowden and not the public.

On your link about Kim, I also have a strong suspicion, hopefully an unfounded one, that you may have fallen into the trap that "journalists" like Joushua Foust have fallen into, in which they all but outright claim "ze Russians" have some nefarious hand in Snowdens cookie jar. Before doing this, please remember that it was never Snowden's intention to seek Asylum in Russia and was headed for Latin America when matters out of his control put him in a spot with limited options.

You don't have time for one specific example?