Hacker News Reader

Comment by worklogin | Hacker News Reader

> Only those with tremendous conscientious, like Snowden or Manning, step up in the face of odds like that.

Good. Look how beneficial Snowden's leaks have been to the cause of civil liberties in the past two years, and because he went Hong Kong and Moscow, many think he MUST be a traitor.

Now imagine if Snowden said "Eh, I wouldn't have done it, but $100,000 was nice."

> Financial compensation shifts the balance to make conscientious disclosure more self-interested.

That's bad; now you've eroded the moral grounds. Even offering legal funds up to $100k would be more ethical than cash payouts.

View on HN

God damn it I just want to see that document, I want to know whether I have to watch my food for 31 oestrogenic insecticides that decrease my kid's fertility(1). Why do I have to f-ing pay some outlaw(!) to get information that concerns me! It pisses me off to no end. If raising this 100.000 is the only way, then so be it! (1 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-droppe...)

It will be fully public for 60 days before Congress votes on it.

"Fully public", for 60 whole days! I can't wait, also, "Beware of the Leopard."

There isn't a (proven) financial incentive for Snowden, yet he's classified as a traitor anyway. Even here on Hacker News, a community of people with an intelligence over average, I've seen opinions that Snowden seeking asylum in Russia is fishy, in spite of the fact that he had no other option. Here we have Snowden living the life of a refugee and being hunted by the most competent intelligence agencies on earth, probably for the rest of his life and we are still discussing ulterior motives, even here on HN.

So what difference would a $100,000 incentive would make in the public opinion? Mostly none. But to the whistleblower, it doesn't make one rich, but it can be enough to escape a country and seek asylum somewhere.

"Even here on Hacker News, a community of people with an intelligence over average..." Really? intelligent in which topic? You are really demeaning others. Just because you are super techie/coder doesn't make you intelligent in other issues.

I was referring to IQ and while I personally never agreed to its validity, I use it anyway because a lot of people do, but let me change that statement ... it's undeniable that here on HN we've got a large concentration of people very familiar with mathematical logic, relational algebra, discrete maths, the good stuff, so we should be able to detect the truthiness of certain statements when facts are involved, since that's what most of us do in our daily jobs, whereas other people rely more on instinct and feelings which can cloud their judgement. Therefore I found it odd to see people on HN classifying the acts of Snowden to be of a bad nature, without hearing arguments more solid than his asylum in Russia. Of course, everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

The content of the leak is the important bit. The whole idea that we should care about the moral standing of the leaker is a distraction created by personality-obsessed media and agenda-driven government PR.

On the other hand, it's in my personal interest for to have someone supply my favorite activists with details of that agreement, which is why I pledged. We are talking about a possibility of giving immense control over governments to for-profit corporations that don't lose time pondering morality. And paying out? Someone who leaks TPP will need some protection and 100k is barely enough to move somewhere safe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com