Russia's Mark Zuckerberg offers Snowden a job.(money.cnn.com)
money.cnn.com
Russia's Mark Zuckerberg offers Snowden a job.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/05/technology/social/snowden-vkontakte/
17 comments
Even Russians get it... Why don't more Americans get it?
Get what?
A large group of the American people are upset that the NSA was spying on its own citizens. There's a healthy, and sometimes rancorous discussion going on over here. Lawmakers are trying to tighten up laws, the cabinet is defensive, and the populace is arguing amongst its self.
betraying the principles it was once built on...
No, "the country" is not. There seems to be this mythical belief that varies from country to country as to what it "means" to be the United States; even within the United States no one can agree as to what those principles actually are -- so how can someone outside of it be so sure? What have we learned in 200+ years of representative democracy? It hurts, it's hard, we can't always agree, we can't always make up our mind, we struggle to find balance, and when groups of people can make rules sometimes they make absolutely atrocious ones just like individuals do. Along the way, it will look terrible and horrible to outsiders who think they "see the obvious that no one inside of the system sees." Sorry, as an outsider you're not miraculously the only one aware of the truth - you're like that annoying other programmer who is always full of great ideas about how your code should be written, but always seems to gloss over the hard parts.
So, for those countries that romanticized about how utopian the United States must be for decades and decades of some other type of rule, and very recently have been given some semblance of democracy, it must be jarring to see there is no magic pill for the corruption and tyranny they may occasionally live under. But to think that "America has lost its way," it to act like a partisan here. I hear that every day from someone who is griping about some thing they don't like. It's trite at best.
The person who made the statement clearly has no idea as to what the principles of the United States actually are, and instead has idolized them into some inner picture of perfection that never existed.
Get what?
A large group of the American people are upset that the NSA was spying on its own citizens. There's a healthy, and sometimes rancorous discussion going on over here. Lawmakers are trying to tighten up laws, the cabinet is defensive, and the populace is arguing amongst its self.
betraying the principles it was once built on...
No, "the country" is not. There seems to be this mythical belief that varies from country to country as to what it "means" to be the United States; even within the United States no one can agree as to what those principles actually are -- so how can someone outside of it be so sure? What have we learned in 200+ years of representative democracy? It hurts, it's hard, we can't always agree, we can't always make up our mind, we struggle to find balance, and when groups of people can make rules sometimes they make absolutely atrocious ones just like individuals do. Along the way, it will look terrible and horrible to outsiders who think they "see the obvious that no one inside of the system sees." Sorry, as an outsider you're not miraculously the only one aware of the truth - you're like that annoying other programmer who is always full of great ideas about how your code should be written, but always seems to gloss over the hard parts.
So, for those countries that romanticized about how utopian the United States must be for decades and decades of some other type of rule, and very recently have been given some semblance of democracy, it must be jarring to see there is no magic pill for the corruption and tyranny they may occasionally live under. But to think that "America has lost its way," it to act like a partisan here. I hear that every day from someone who is griping about some thing they don't like. It's trite at best.
The person who made the statement clearly has no idea as to what the principles of the United States actually are, and instead has idolized them into some inner picture of perfection that never existed.
You speak as though you know "what the principles of the United Sates actually are", but much like the maligned "annoying other programmer", you don't mention what these principles might be.
You speak as though you know "what the principles of the United Sates actually are", but much like the maligned "annoying other programmer", you don't mention what these principles might be
Quote: even within the United States no one can agree as to what those principles actually are -- so how can someone outside of it be so sure
Quote: even within the United States no one can agree as to what those principles actually are -- so how can someone outside of it be so sure
This painfully reminds me of George Carlin, who referred to the original artisans of his country -- in jest -- as "a bunch of white slaveowners who wanted to be free".
I understand this was in jest, but this comes up on HN often.
Slavery was introduced in America ~two centuries before the founding fathers had influence.
They were focused on the threat of authoritarianism/british rule, and failed to properly address their own complicit authoritarianism.
Very much like many people today who are all of a sudden concerned about the abuses of the "police state" aggressively targeting protesters and activists, when black communities have been harassed and targeted for decades (see the only domestic aerial bombing in US history targeting black activists in the 1980s [1] or recently "stop and frisk") with little public protest from white communities.
...or the difference in legal sentencing for crack cocaine vs powdered cocaine.
Racial hypocrisy is hardly a thing of the past in public discourse.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
Slavery was introduced in America ~two centuries before the founding fathers had influence.
They were focused on the threat of authoritarianism/british rule, and failed to properly address their own complicit authoritarianism.
Very much like many people today who are all of a sudden concerned about the abuses of the "police state" aggressively targeting protesters and activists, when black communities have been harassed and targeted for decades (see the only domestic aerial bombing in US history targeting black activists in the 1980s [1] or recently "stop and frisk") with little public protest from white communities.
...or the difference in legal sentencing for crack cocaine vs powdered cocaine.
Racial hypocrisy is hardly a thing of the past in public discourse.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE
Believe me, Russian government is doing the same thing as NSA did. There are rumors about spying hardware installed in Russian ISPs. There are rumors about Russian organization that produces hardware for logging all internet traffic, decrypting on the fly encrypted data, filtering it and etc. Difference between this and NSA is than information about NSA is now public.
No contradiction to the point that GP made. Nobody said that Putin's Russia is more free than US. They just did the right thing in this particular case and made the "land of the free" look hypocritical as a result. This doesn't imply anything about how Russia citizens are treated by their own state.
Snowden is nothing more than a political pawn for Russia. Once he landed in Moscow he had little power over his own destiny.
Snowden didn't get asylum in Russia out of the goodness of their hearts but rather Putin wanting to annoy USA and score anti-USA points on home turf. It has nothing to do with "doing the right thing" It is a political game, nothing else.
It is naive to believe anything else. It did, however, benefit Snowden, it is probably better to sit in a Russian quasi-house-arrest than a trip to an American prison.
Snowden didn't get asylum in Russia out of the goodness of their hearts but rather Putin wanting to annoy USA and score anti-USA points on home turf. It has nothing to do with "doing the right thing" It is a political game, nothing else.
It is naive to believe anything else. It did, however, benefit Snowden, it is probably better to sit in a Russian quasi-house-arrest than a trip to an American prison.
I just don't understand how someone can be proud about modern Russia in any way.
Bad doesn't cancel out good, they exist side by side. I admire the US for it's amazing alternative culture (steampunk, goth, robots, anime, comic books, oh my). I admire it for it's incredible technological innovation. I have often weighed those things against the lack of support for it's citizens (No free healthcare, little to no vacation, often mandatory overtime, rich wins legal system, etc). I don't know as much about Russia and the US but I'm sure that it has a tremendous amount of good and bad living side by side. There's plenty to be proud of as well as ashamed of.
> I don't know as much about Russia...
Unfortunately I know about Russia too much. I totally agree with you, but from my point of view and with information that I'm getting about Russia I can't see how to look at that country from positive perspective.
Unfortunately I know about Russia too much. I totally agree with you, but from my point of view and with information that I'm getting about Russia I can't see how to look at that country from positive perspective.
Go visit Russia, it's hard to evaluate any country based on information gleaned from the outside.
Edit: Actually, by visit, I mean go and live there for a while
Edit: Actually, by visit, I mean go and live there for a while
I live in Belarus, so I think I can imagine what Russia is like (we have less issues in country, but most of negative aspects are same).
Well, you can be proud Russia has a very sane 13% flat national tax system while the US has incomprehensible tax code.
I recall hearing about polls where like a third of US respondents believe that the US government was behind 9-11. Of course I don't believe it did, but clearly lots of us think we're run by a bunch of criminals. In comparison to graver problems (being the most incarceration-happy nation, mass international killings, etc), the Snowden thing is minor.
Durov's whole line about "betraying the principles it was once built on" is a reference to the usual quasi-religious nationalist founding mythologies.
Durov's whole line about "betraying the principles it was once built on" is a reference to the usual quasi-religious nationalist founding mythologies.
I really don't get how people can be so naive on HN. Let's talk about Snowden all day and wish we were more like Russia, where it's perfectly ok to say anything you want.
Sorry guys, but not every one really believes the NSA should be disbanded. They have a real job to do. Certainly there needs to be limits, which we could of course discuss for years on end, but I don't see the point of doing it in a forum that really isn't suitable for the topic.
Ok, back to the echo chamber. 4 downvotes and this message disappears. Well, I do need to try occasionally. HN used to be a great site.
Sorry guys, but not every one really believes the NSA should be disbanded. They have a real job to do. Certainly there needs to be limits, which we could of course discuss for years on end, but I don't see the point of doing it in a forum that really isn't suitable for the topic.
Ok, back to the echo chamber. 4 downvotes and this message disappears. Well, I do need to try occasionally. HN used to be a great site.
And it would be one thing if it were a country that had any sort of positive track record on privacy protection. The idea that Russia of all places should be used as an example of privacy protection vs. the US is _hilarious_.
I mean, off the top of my head: Gazprom/Rosneft, Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R...
And that's not to even just generally discuss the FSB, which is a proportionately larger and more corrupt version of the CIA and NSA combined. Just imagine if Bush or Obama were a former CIA officer, and had used a loophole in the Constitution to stay in power for more than a decade.
Russia's human rights and privacy rights are deplorable. Good for Snowden and his sense of realpolitik, but let's not pretend this is anything more than nation-state theater.
I mean, off the top of my head: Gazprom/Rosneft, Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R...
And that's not to even just generally discuss the FSB, which is a proportionately larger and more corrupt version of the CIA and NSA combined. Just imagine if Bush or Obama were a former CIA officer, and had used a loophole in the Constitution to stay in power for more than a decade.
Russia's human rights and privacy rights are deplorable. Good for Snowden and his sense of realpolitik, but let's not pretend this is anything more than nation-state theater.
D9u said "even Russians get it", not "the Russians get it", "Russia gets it", or "the Russian government gets it", so I don't think D9u meant to say that the political and social climate in Russia is what we should aspire to.
Clearly, if he/she did, he would be poorly informed. Russia's crackdown on LGBT rights, their out-of-proportion prosecution of Pussy Riot and the oppression of opposition are recent markers of how free speech does not rule in Russia.
Clearly, if he/she did, he would be poorly informed. Russia's crackdown on LGBT rights, their out-of-proportion prosecution of Pussy Riot and the oppression of opposition are recent markers of how free speech does not rule in Russia.
Russians said US betrayed their own principles, not Russia principles.
Russians never had a free speech culture, and never cared about it, yes there is some minority that care, but pools there for example.revealed that 78% of the population is very happy with the ban of LGBT speech.
Also if Russian government allowed pussy riot on the street, someone would volunteer to kill them for profaning the church. Their issue is not with their message, but with how they did it.
Russians never had a free speech culture, and never cared about it, yes there is some minority that care, but pools there for example.revealed that 78% of the population is very happy with the ban of LGBT speech.
Also if Russian government allowed pussy riot on the street, someone would volunteer to kill them for profaning the church. Their issue is not with their message, but with how they did it.
> Ok, back to the echo chamber. 4 downvotes and this message disappears. Well, I do need to try occasionally. HN used to be a great site.
I'm sorry but this kind of comment is what makes HN worse. From the HN guidelines: "Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you."
I'm sorry but this kind of comment is what makes HN worse. From the HN guidelines: "Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you."
Expressing frustration at a sudden bunch of downvotes on a post that shouldn't have been downvoted is understandable.
I'm in favour of down voting and I think people should be doing it a lot more on HN, but it is frustrating when reasonable posts are downvoted.
I'm in favour of down voting and I think people should be doing it a lot more on HN, but it is frustrating when reasonable posts are downvoted.
Reasonable posts? I dont even have the power to downvote, but I would if I could, Why?
Because first its patronizing,
>I really don't get how people can be so naive on HN. Let's talk about Snowden all day and wish we were more like Russia, where it's perfectly ok to say anything you want.
No one said or implied this, simply that russian people were understanding there was something deeply wrong about the situation.
>Sorry guys, but not every one really believes the NSA should be disbanded. They have a real job to do. Certainly there needs to be limits, which we could of course discuss for years on end, but I don't see the point of doing it in a forum that really isn't suitable for the topic.
Nobody said this besides extreme and unthinking people and to suggest it is simply a strawman. Secondly, "I dont feel like talking about it", well then dont click the article and dont submit a comment.
>Ok, back to the echo chamber. 4 downvotes and this message disappears. Well, I do need to try occasionally. HN used to be a great site.
Asking for it.
I hope you can see where people would think this post adds very little to the discussion and in fact is inflammatory in some respects.
No one said or implied this, simply that russian people were understanding there was something deeply wrong about the situation.
>Sorry guys, but not every one really believes the NSA should be disbanded. They have a real job to do. Certainly there needs to be limits, which we could of course discuss for years on end, but I don't see the point of doing it in a forum that really isn't suitable for the topic.
Nobody said this besides extreme and unthinking people and to suggest it is simply a strawman. Secondly, "I dont feel like talking about it", well then dont click the article and dont submit a comment.
>Ok, back to the echo chamber. 4 downvotes and this message disappears. Well, I do need to try occasionally. HN used to be a great site.
Asking for it.
I hope you can see where people would think this post adds very little to the discussion and in fact is inflammatory in some respects.
> I hope you can see where people would think this post adds very little to the discussion
Yes, but it's a crap link so all the posts are worthless.
Yes, but it's a crap link so all the posts are worthless.
Except they're correct. HN has always been an echo chamber and the groupthink here is thicker than most places.
It's been worse lately, I wish all political debates were banned in this place. IMO HN should be a technical forum first and foremost.
There are plenty of places on the internet do discuss politics, this doesn't need to be one of them.
There are plenty of places on the internet do discuss politics, this doesn't need to be one of them.
There is and always has been a massive overlap between technology and politics, especially computer technology.
To try and have a purely technical forum without any politics at all when dealing with the subject of computers, would be to ignore many of the main players and originators and also the motives that led to the existence of much of the technology.
The current news with the NSA is political, sure, but it is also as technical as it gets.
To try and have a purely technical forum without any politics at all when dealing with the subject of computers, would be to ignore many of the main players and originators and also the motives that led to the existence of much of the technology.
The current news with the NSA is political, sure, but it is also as technical as it gets.
Be the change you want to see.
I mean, I'm guilty of the same thing, too.
Really, I think the problem is that I (or you) click on these obvious political headlines. It's not like it's not obvious what they are from the headline, so they aren't hard to avoid. I'd compare this waste of time with being fat; the problem isn't the candy jar; the problem is that I /eat/ the candy in the candy jar.
I mean, I'm guilty of the same thing, too.
Really, I think the problem is that I (or you) click on these obvious political headlines. It's not like it's not obvious what they are from the headline, so they aren't hard to avoid. I'd compare this waste of time with being fat; the problem isn't the candy jar; the problem is that I /eat/ the candy in the candy jar.
Honestly, here's the thing for me - I agree with your comment in theory, but in practice, I'm not so sure. This forum was never meant for politics, and I think it's a real bummer that a potentially large faction of the readership here will forever have a tarnished view of the discussion here due to the strong political bent of the last few weeks. But in practice, I really don't know where else to go to see smart people discuss this topic. I know lots of places to find lots of people loudly agreeing with each other on one side of the debate or another, and I know some places where people debate it with the I'm-more-stubborn-and-louder-than-you methodology. Certainly the discussion here has been guilty of both of those sins at times, but I've yet to find a forum with more adversarial but civil discussion than this one.
Suggestions?
Suggestions?
Let's just flag those posts that we think don't belong here.
Careful, if you do this too often you'll lose flag privileges.
Besides, since pg has commented on a few of these posts approvingly, and since stories that would be [dead] within minutes previously now regularly top the front page, we have to assume he is OK with "Snowden News" at least for now.
Besides, since pg has commented on a few of these posts approvingly, and since stories that would be [dead] within minutes previously now regularly top the front page, we have to assume he is OK with "Snowden News" at least for now.
How about starting by not commenting on posts you aren't interested in.
Except that the implications of Snowden and PRISM and whatnot are fisrt and foremost technical when it comes to running an online business, something HN is very focused on.
This submission has zero technical content. There is nothing in this discussion that is relevant to people running an online business in a world where PRISM exists.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Although I agree with you on many points I think you might be projecting onto D9u's comment. Nothing in the quote he posted suggests it is necessary to disband the NSA, nothing suggests Americans should wish they lived in a country like Russia. A 'course taken' implies a general direction, not a revolutionary change.
In the current situation Russians should be allowed to feel pride that it was their decrepit mafia state that opposed the United States on Snowden. That doesn't mean Russia did it for the right reasons, or that Russia is now a better place than it was before. A lot of Russians who feel pride in this action would probably still take the opportunity to live and work in the USA, the two are not mutually exclusive.
The problem I have with posts like yours is that they imply that because other places are a mess that exonerates the USA heading in that direction too.
In the current situation Russians should be allowed to feel pride that it was their decrepit mafia state that opposed the United States on Snowden. That doesn't mean Russia did it for the right reasons, or that Russia is now a better place than it was before. A lot of Russians who feel pride in this action would probably still take the opportunity to live and work in the USA, the two are not mutually exclusive.
The problem I have with posts like yours is that they imply that because other places are a mess that exonerates the USA heading in that direction too.
Seeing this post made me very happy, actually. I've commented before about my perspective in the NSA and doing government work, but immediately get showered with downvotes because I have a point of view that differs from what other people have been rallying towards. I don't understand the motivation behind preventing discussion of actual facts or interesting points of view.
If 11 year old BBS-hacking NSA-conspiracy-fearing me had an opportunity to talk to and ask questions of former NSA analyst/programmer me, I would definitely have come up with a better discussion than the HN community.
At least my upvote will counter at least one close-minded person.
If 11 year old BBS-hacking NSA-conspiracy-fearing me had an opportunity to talk to and ask questions of former NSA analyst/programmer me, I would definitely have come up with a better discussion than the HN community.
At least my upvote will counter at least one close-minded person.
What's the deal with everybody always taking sides?!
NSA AND Russia are bad.
There is nothing good in spying on people OR outlawing gays...
NSA AND Russia are bad.
There is nothing good in spying on people OR outlawing gays...
Not only individual people take sides, organizations and governments take too. For how I see it, NSA is bashed because it took a side against the most of us. Russia on the other hand, gets its "hurray" because it opposes the one that is against us right now. It's not necessarily taking a side and sticking with it as a partisan, it is just condemning or recognizing one's merit when it's the case, simple.
[deleted]
Have a different opinion to you is not close-minded. Being unwilling to discuss ones opinion sensibly, eg labelling those whose opinions differ to yours as "close-minded", is close-minded.
Please re-read what I wrote and what I responded to. It was a post which was being downmodded because people didn't agree with his opinion, and I was opposing those who were suppressing his opinion. As in, those that were downmodding rather than supplying discussion content were close-minded.
This isn't supposed to be reddit, where people downmod something because it is an opinion that they don't agree with.
This isn't supposed to be reddit, where people downmod something because it is an opinion that they don't agree with.
> and wish we were more like Russia
We are not saying we think the states should be more like Russia, well I aren't at least, we're pointing out the hypocrisy of the Powers That Be state-side.
They publicly chant "our way is better, what you are doing it wrong" but when their way doesn't work or otherwise becomes inconvenient they are perfectly happy to quietly use the techniques and policies they deride when others use them.
Russia doing many more bad things than the US is not justification for the US doing one thing we consider wrong.
I can't say I see anyone who is in the right in all this:
* I can see the national security argument having some validity so Snowden is culpable for releasing state secrets. He was trusted with information, he abused that trust (for reasons he and many others consider morally correct, but that morality issue does not mean it wasn't an abuse of trust).
* But what he released was details of the states doing something that they promised they were not doing, something that they deride oppressive states for. Whether Snowden's actions are right or wrong does not alter the fact the powers that be over there are both liars and hypocrites. They have abused the trust of their people.
* Russia is only taking part in this little game to wind up people it (or perhaps more specifically, Putin) feels the desire to wind up. They don't care one way or the other for Snowden specifically nor that the US is explicitly spying on its own people.
We are not saying we think the states should be more like Russia, well I aren't at least, we're pointing out the hypocrisy of the Powers That Be state-side.
They publicly chant "our way is better, what you are doing it wrong" but when their way doesn't work or otherwise becomes inconvenient they are perfectly happy to quietly use the techniques and policies they deride when others use them.
Russia doing many more bad things than the US is not justification for the US doing one thing we consider wrong.
I can't say I see anyone who is in the right in all this:
* I can see the national security argument having some validity so Snowden is culpable for releasing state secrets. He was trusted with information, he abused that trust (for reasons he and many others consider morally correct, but that morality issue does not mean it wasn't an abuse of trust).
* But what he released was details of the states doing something that they promised they were not doing, something that they deride oppressive states for. Whether Snowden's actions are right or wrong does not alter the fact the powers that be over there are both liars and hypocrites. They have abused the trust of their people.
* Russia is only taking part in this little game to wind up people it (or perhaps more specifically, Putin) feels the desire to wind up. They don't care one way or the other for Snowden specifically nor that the US is explicitly spying on its own people.
[deleted]
You're ridiculous. This comment is a spectacular example of the faulty politicizing and black and white mentality being tossed about willy-nilly since the NSA scandal.
First of all - this is not indicative of Russia. This is just one Russian national giving him a job, and his stated reasons in the press may not be the real reasons why.
Second, Russia gave him asylum yes, but instead of echo chambering your preconceived beliefs about the NSA, why don't you apply the same critical skepticism to news coming out of Russia? Why don't you examine why Russia might want to grant asylum to an American refugee like Snowden instead of just saying, "Oh, they just get it man. They get it."
Third, there isn't anything concrete to get - the NSA isn't an evil, demonic institution sent here as a harbinger of the apocalypse. It's an institution whose abuses were wildly exaggerated and need to be corrected, not something to be burned to the ground. The country would not be better off without the agency in its entirety.
You're just applying this naive sense of cops and robbers to the entire dilemma and not critically examining all the evidence/stories. Your bias allows you to over-criticize one side and over-praise the other.
First of all - this is not indicative of Russia. This is just one Russian national giving him a job, and his stated reasons in the press may not be the real reasons why.
Second, Russia gave him asylum yes, but instead of echo chambering your preconceived beliefs about the NSA, why don't you apply the same critical skepticism to news coming out of Russia? Why don't you examine why Russia might want to grant asylum to an American refugee like Snowden instead of just saying, "Oh, they just get it man. They get it."
Third, there isn't anything concrete to get - the NSA isn't an evil, demonic institution sent here as a harbinger of the apocalypse. It's an institution whose abuses were wildly exaggerated and need to be corrected, not something to be burned to the ground. The country would not be better off without the agency in its entirety.
You're just applying this naive sense of cops and robbers to the entire dilemma and not critically examining all the evidence/stories. Your bias allows you to over-criticize one side and over-praise the other.
Sorry, secretly storing and analyzing the private communications and browsing history of everyone on the planet absolutely is evil. Doesn't matter what the reason is.
If you don't understand this, there is something severely wrong with your moral compass.
If you don't understand this, there is something severely wrong with your moral compass.
Didn't necessarily disagree with you until "If you don't understand this, there is something severely wrong with your moral compass." Personal attack and severe hyperbole wrapped into one, comments are about encouraging debate, so if you can't do that, just...shhhhh...
What exactly is your definition of evil? This seems like such a hyperbolic statement.
"The moment someone keeps an eye on what we do, we involuntarily make allowances for that eye, and nothing we do is truthful. Having a public, keeping a public in mind, means living in lies."
-Milan Kundera
I think this form of societal corruption is one of the greatest and most insidious evils a government can undertake. You should read some accounts by people who have lived under similar monitoring regimes.
-Milan Kundera
I think this form of societal corruption is one of the greatest and most insidious evils a government can undertake. You should read some accounts by people who have lived under similar monitoring regimes.
This is one of the few times I've seen a genuine ad hominem on Hacker News...thank you for attacking my "moral compass" instead of the substance of my argument.
Now, to counter what you said - you're reaching by claiming the NSA "secretly stores and analyzes" the private communications of everyone on the planet. One interpretation of the materials originally leaked purports this, but there is also data contesting this view which is equally valid. Again - the echo chamber and bias allows you to just unilaterally suppose the NSA is capable of retrieving all data everywhere, but you're not examining counter evidence.
X-Keyscore allows email and web content surveillance, yes, but it isn't even practical to mine all data at once - it is much more practical (and probable) that this allows for finding and assembling an entry point to see where you should really begin looking in depth as an NSA analyst[1]. But, no, your traffic is not being viewed universally or entirely without someone at least believing there's a reason.
[1]: http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jul/31/nsa...
Now, to counter what you said - you're reaching by claiming the NSA "secretly stores and analyzes" the private communications of everyone on the planet. One interpretation of the materials originally leaked purports this, but there is also data contesting this view which is equally valid. Again - the echo chamber and bias allows you to just unilaterally suppose the NSA is capable of retrieving all data everywhere, but you're not examining counter evidence.
X-Keyscore allows email and web content surveillance, yes, but it isn't even practical to mine all data at once - it is much more practical (and probable) that this allows for finding and assembling an entry point to see where you should really begin looking in depth as an NSA analyst[1]. But, no, your traffic is not being viewed universally or entirely without someone at least believing there's a reason.
[1]: http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jul/31/nsa...
You are hand wringing over the details and completely missing the point. The most conservative possible interpretation of Snowden's leaks still leaves the NSA secretly spying on the private communications and online activity of hundreds of millions of innocent people. It is a starkly totalitarian measure that is unparalleled in human history.
If you find it difficult to see why this is morally abhorrent, I'm just not sure what to say you to you, as I think it would be quite apparent to the average 9 year old that deliberately spying on people who have done nothing to warrant suspicion is wrong.
If you find it difficult to see why this is morally abhorrent, I'm just not sure what to say you to you, as I think it would be quite apparent to the average 9 year old that deliberately spying on people who have done nothing to warrant suspicion is wrong.
> It is a starkly totalitarian measure that is unparalleled in human history.
Really...? Come on now, that's totally unbacked by any analysis of history. I agree with you on the immorality, but hyperbole like that doesn't advance your case very well.
Really...? Come on now, that's totally unbacked by any analysis of history. I agree with you on the immorality, but hyperbole like that doesn't advance your case very well.
Let's see, is it hyperbole?
An unabashedly totalitarian regime would spy on all its subjects, all the time, through every available channel. It would keep the details of its spying as secret as it can, while letting everyone know they're being watched. It looks like we have most of this, minus 'unabashedly': they claim they drop particular cases where they learn the people they're spying on are citizens within the borders who don't fit a long list of exceptions (crypto, etc.); and they're trying to hide the extent of spying. (On the other hand I don't consider secret courts to weigh much against the label 'totalitarian': the Soviets had that kind of thing, too.)
It could be unparalleled in either nature or extent. In nature, automated data mining is pretty new; in extent, the previous paradigm case, the Stasi, falls laughably short in some ways, while still far ahead in others (informers).
I think the quote isn't unreasonable, though it's loose.
An unabashedly totalitarian regime would spy on all its subjects, all the time, through every available channel. It would keep the details of its spying as secret as it can, while letting everyone know they're being watched. It looks like we have most of this, minus 'unabashedly': they claim they drop particular cases where they learn the people they're spying on are citizens within the borders who don't fit a long list of exceptions (crypto, etc.); and they're trying to hide the extent of spying. (On the other hand I don't consider secret courts to weigh much against the label 'totalitarian': the Soviets had that kind of thing, too.)
It could be unparalleled in either nature or extent. In nature, automated data mining is pretty new; in extent, the previous paradigm case, the Stasi, falls laughably short in some ways, while still far ahead in others (informers).
I think the quote isn't unreasonable, though it's loose.
Please point out any previous attempts to build ubiquitous international surveillance systems that intercept trillions of private communications.
I'll grant that if you include science fiction novels, there are a few contenders.
I'll grant that if you include science fiction novels, there are a few contenders.
I agree with you that this extent of surveillance is a characteristic element of totalitarian regimes. But the things that totalitarian regimes do with the data they collect is different from what happens in the US right now (as far as I can tell).
All totalitarian regimes used broad surveillance, but not all countries that have overly broad surveillance programs are totalitarian. What's missing is the desire for total control of many different aspects of life and political activity.
However, I think that there is a great danger that "total information awareness" leads to an ever greater desire for total control. That desire may even come from the people and have superficial democratic legitimacy. If everyone knows that the government knows everything, the people will demand control over many things that other people do.
All totalitarian regimes used broad surveillance, but not all countries that have overly broad surveillance programs are totalitarian. What's missing is the desire for total control of many different aspects of life and political activity.
However, I think that there is a great danger that "total information awareness" leads to an ever greater desire for total control. That desire may even come from the people and have superficial democratic legitimacy. If everyone knows that the government knows everything, the people will demand control over many things that other people do.
Hundreds of millions is a bit more tolerable than an entire planet. I'd like to also point out I agree with you - none of my statements here should be interpreted as support for the NSA's excesses. Rather, my incentive is to:
1) Prevent people on the forum from using it as a buzzword to make points devoid of strong, reasoned arguments,
2) Prevent people from believing the NSA should be burned to the ground and disbanded entirely, when it does serve a very useful purpose.
Historically, there have been far worse totalitarian measures. To give one that is relevant to privacy and this particular issue: consider that in the KGB, the secret police could raid your home at any time without a warrant, and when you picked up the phone an operator immediately told you what you said would be recorded. Oh, sure you knew about it. That makes it so much better, I suppose, even though it was far more reaching than what the NSA is currently doing.
I want it very well understood that while the excesses of the agency should be corrected, and Americans should be entitled to privacy, we can't allow ourselves to just attack things passionately because the NSA scandal tells us to. That, and we should maintain a historical perspective so we understand how bad things are and we don't freak out as if it's the worst thing ever, when far worse things have happened in previous generations.
A level of outrage is appropriate - losing sensibility in debates is not.
1) Prevent people on the forum from using it as a buzzword to make points devoid of strong, reasoned arguments,
2) Prevent people from believing the NSA should be burned to the ground and disbanded entirely, when it does serve a very useful purpose.
Historically, there have been far worse totalitarian measures. To give one that is relevant to privacy and this particular issue: consider that in the KGB, the secret police could raid your home at any time without a warrant, and when you picked up the phone an operator immediately told you what you said would be recorded. Oh, sure you knew about it. That makes it so much better, I suppose, even though it was far more reaching than what the NSA is currently doing.
I want it very well understood that while the excesses of the agency should be corrected, and Americans should be entitled to privacy, we can't allow ourselves to just attack things passionately because the NSA scandal tells us to. That, and we should maintain a historical perspective so we understand how bad things are and we don't freak out as if it's the worst thing ever, when far worse things have happened in previous generations.
A level of outrage is appropriate - losing sensibility in debates is not.
Not to dissuade or disagree with your thoughts, but your opinion about evilness of this program will change over time. For example, when you get stuck (God forbid) in an unwarranted situation or a legal hassle and then the same NSA program you passively protect now is used to check back on your past data/behavior and then pull out useful subjective information and taint you with phrases like "infamous former contractor" and so on ... Have you thought about this?
Objectivity is a logical illusion.
Objectivity is a logical illusion.
Well...I agree personal experience can be a powerful motivator for changing opinions. But what I'm saying is what I have found through researching it.
As to my feelings for whether or not the NSA should be preserved vs. destroyed entirely - yes, I could see how personal experience could skew this. I, thankfully, haven't had such interference in my life.
But I also want to point out I'm not protecting the NSA's PRISM et al. programs. I think they're too strong, and too obscured. But I do believe the NSA can replace them with more functional, transparent tools that will achieve the same goals. I also believe people are being swayed by big headlines and pathos arguments that prevent them from examining the NSA critically instead of passionately - I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes it seem.
As to my feelings for whether or not the NSA should be preserved vs. destroyed entirely - yes, I could see how personal experience could skew this. I, thankfully, haven't had such interference in my life.
But I also want to point out I'm not protecting the NSA's PRISM et al. programs. I think they're too strong, and too obscured. But I do believe the NSA can replace them with more functional, transparent tools that will achieve the same goals. I also believe people are being swayed by big headlines and pathos arguments that prevent them from examining the NSA critically instead of passionately - I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes it seem.
(Ad hominems?)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6178980
You're assuming that I haven't actually done my homework and am making an off-the-cuff statement based upon media exposure, when the facts of this matter are that I have done my homework on this topic.
(Obama on domestic surveillance, 2007) http://youtu.be/ZVUwUCe1e-A
(Why we don't trust the government) https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/restoring_tru...
(The Terrorism Delusion) http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/absisfin.pd...
As the facts are, and looking at the situation objectively, the sustained reaction to the 9/11 incident is uncalled for, especially when the US has gone through previous decades which had seen exponentially more terrorist (lots of bombs) activity on US soil than any time since, yet back then the government didn't overreact and implement such excessive measures as we see today, in commercial airports where passengers are treated like criminals in a prison, in our electronic communications, and our financial records.
I, personally, have never called for the abolition of the NSA, but rather would like to see less intrusive measures employed instead of what they're doing now.
Where is the probable cause for the interception, collection, and storage of my electronic communications? Where is the probable cause showing that I might be a terrorist?
There are conditions which are supposed to be met when the government wants to violate my 4th Amendment rights, and to add an exception for "National Security," where no exception exists, equates to denial of civil rights, so when it's done on as massive a scale as we see case now it's a gross breach of the public trust and people have a right to voice their displeasure with the actions of their government.
To simply sweep this under the rug would be the most unpatriotic thing you could do, and justifying this obviously unpopular program by citing terrorism is disingenuous when viewed from a chronological perspective.
You're assuming that I haven't actually done my homework and am making an off-the-cuff statement based upon media exposure, when the facts of this matter are that I have done my homework on this topic.
(Obama on domestic surveillance, 2007) http://youtu.be/ZVUwUCe1e-A
(Why we don't trust the government) https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/restoring_tru...
(The Terrorism Delusion) http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/absisfin.pd...
As the facts are, and looking at the situation objectively, the sustained reaction to the 9/11 incident is uncalled for, especially when the US has gone through previous decades which had seen exponentially more terrorist (lots of bombs) activity on US soil than any time since, yet back then the government didn't overreact and implement such excessive measures as we see today, in commercial airports where passengers are treated like criminals in a prison, in our electronic communications, and our financial records.
I, personally, have never called for the abolition of the NSA, but rather would like to see less intrusive measures employed instead of what they're doing now.
Where is the probable cause for the interception, collection, and storage of my electronic communications? Where is the probable cause showing that I might be a terrorist?
There are conditions which are supposed to be met when the government wants to violate my 4th Amendment rights, and to add an exception for "National Security," where no exception exists, equates to denial of civil rights, so when it's done on as massive a scale as we see case now it's a gross breach of the public trust and people have a right to voice their displeasure with the actions of their government.
To simply sweep this under the rug would be the most unpatriotic thing you could do, and justifying this obviously unpopular program by citing terrorism is disingenuous when viewed from a chronological perspective.
You're right on the details, and I agree with your analysis, but the moral question still stands. Do we as a society and nation have any right to do this? Why does our desire for security trump the rights of people at home and abroad? And why does having a conversation on this topic have to be so damn difficult -- all the details are kept secret, down to the interpretation of the laws that apparently allow for programs like these. There's something fundamentally messed up about all this.
SAYS "YOU'RE RIDICULOUS" TO A PREVIOUS POSTER FOR POINTING OUT THE OBVIOUS
WHINES ABOUT BEING THE TARGET OF AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK
WHINES ABOUT BEING THE TARGET OF AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK
Normally I disagree with the invocation of Scumbag Steve, but you, sir, are doing it right.
After reading the article on Crowdturfing [1], I can no longer assume that everyone posting here is acting in good faith.
[1] http://sdt.bz/61989
After reading the article on Crowdturfing [1], I can no longer assume that everyone posting here is acting in good faith.
[1] http://sdt.bz/61989
...Really? Please don't yell - it's not conductive to making your point.
I said "ridiculous" because it was a narrow, misinformed comment that failed to properly encapsulate the entire subject at hand. It wasn't representative of what's really going on in the political theater between Russia and the United States right now, e.g. no consideration of Russia's motives, positive impact of the NSA, how Russia would be hypocritical to endorse press freedom and citizen privacy, etc. etc. etc.
In fact, nothing about his comment was obvious - if you continue on through the thread, you can clearly see how my rebuttal dissects the entire view that Russia "gets" anything very sufficiently.
I said "ridiculous" because it was a narrow, misinformed comment that failed to properly encapsulate the entire subject at hand. It wasn't representative of what's really going on in the political theater between Russia and the United States right now, e.g. no consideration of Russia's motives, positive impact of the NSA, how Russia would be hypocritical to endorse press freedom and citizen privacy, etc. etc. etc.
In fact, nothing about his comment was obvious - if you continue on through the thread, you can clearly see how my rebuttal dissects the entire view that Russia "gets" anything very sufficiently.
You defend your own ad hominems with more ad hominems?
How do you know that I am misinformed?
I've read everything that I can get my hands on regarding this subject.
Then you go on to confuse the sentiments of one Russian for the policies of an entire nation?
Who's being ridiculous here?
Then you go on to confuse the sentiments of one Russian for the policies of an entire nation?
Who's being ridiculous here?
When you said "you're ridiculous" you attacked the poster rather than the opinion, which made that part of your comment ad-hominem. That statement, juxtaposed with your complaint immediately following about being subject to the same sort of attack was indeed rather humorous.
I know that VKontakte is giving information and even messaging history about people to authorities on the first request. That what was happening in Belarus after election and protests related to "fair" election. People where requested to go to the KGB/Police. In "nice" conversation with "pleasant" people they saw messaging logs from VKontakte, movements history based on mobile phone data and etc. Requests from different country and VKontakte was still giving that information for free.
Good job, Pavel. Talk more about Privacy now.
Good job, Pavel. Talk more about Privacy now.
I dont know about that, but I know that he didnt cooperate with Fedaral Security Service:
>After mass anti-Kremlin protests broke out in the wake of the disputed December 2011 elections to the Russian parliament, the State Duma, Durov reportedly refused to comply with a request from the Federal Security Service (FSB) to block opposition groups from using the site. There appeared to be no immediate repercussions, but then in April of 2013, Durov was accused of hitting a traffic policeman with his car, with a video of the alleged incident appearing online. On April 16, VKontakte's main offices in central St. Petersburg were searched by police. Durov, who denies even owning a car, fled the country and has not been seen in public since. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Durov
>After mass anti-Kremlin protests broke out in the wake of the disputed December 2011 elections to the Russian parliament, the State Duma, Durov reportedly refused to comply with a request from the Federal Security Service (FSB) to block opposition groups from using the site. There appeared to be no immediate repercussions, but then in April of 2013, Durov was accused of hitting a traffic policeman with his car, with a video of the alleged incident appearing online. On April 16, VKontakte's main offices in central St. Petersburg were searched by police. Durov, who denies even owning a car, fled the country and has not been seen in public since. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Durov
Wouldn't Pavel then rather not offer job to Snowden, knowing that every word from Snowden would be listened by the whole world, and that the whole world would then learn about such actions too?
As far as I remember that kind of actions once was officially admitted by Vkontakte. They said something about helping in crimes investigation and etc.
It's the same douchebag that was making paper airplanes out of real money, throwing them from his office window and then going all ecstatic over people on the ground fighting each other for these planes.
Yeah, it's once in a lifetime opportunity for Snowden. Woo. Hoo.
Yeah, it's once in a lifetime opportunity for Snowden. Woo. Hoo.
I worked with Durov in 2007 and 2008 (making everything for the VK video service; I moved to Paris after getting bored managing 200+ servers in 3 datacenters). He is a brilliant guy, however he's also eccentric. And his brother's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Durov) sysadmin/system programmers team is one of the best in the world as far as I can say.
Unlike Facebook, VK guys are still capable to work in a very small team without hundreds of mediocre outsourced developers.
Unlike Facebook, VK guys are still capable to work in a very small team without hundreds of mediocre outsourced developers.
I don't doubt he is not a usual person, but taking glee at people fighting over money that you throw out of the window is hardly "eccentric". But then 2008 was 5 years ago and people change fast.
Opinion about someone throwing money out of the window works both ways: the more you dislike how one guy caused others to fight over paper, the more you should dislike fighters for what they do.
Unlike ancient times when a king throwing money around would be the same person who robs his citizens, Durov did not steal from anyone. Everyone who was fighting for money are responsible for their free choice. Durov is responsible only for throwing paper bills out of the window. Anyone who was harmed during that voluntary gathering, was harmed by greedy dudes, not by pieces of paper.
PS. Imagine if Durov set up a charity organization that gave away money to people based on some criteria. This would have some competition among people. Some of them will attempt to eliminate competition by defaming them, or blackmailing, or brutally fighting. Would Durov be responsible for all this fight around "free" money, or would actual fighters be responsible?
Unlike ancient times when a king throwing money around would be the same person who robs his citizens, Durov did not steal from anyone. Everyone who was fighting for money are responsible for their free choice. Durov is responsible only for throwing paper bills out of the window. Anyone who was harmed during that voluntary gathering, was harmed by greedy dudes, not by pieces of paper.
PS. Imagine if Durov set up a charity organization that gave away money to people based on some criteria. This would have some competition among people. Some of them will attempt to eliminate competition by defaming them, or blackmailing, or brutally fighting. Would Durov be responsible for all this fight around "free" money, or would actual fighters be responsible?
Yeah, sure, big words.
The bottom line is that he enjoyed seeing people fight over his money. I have no empathy for the guy, he's an asshole.
The bottom line is that he enjoyed seeing people fight over his money. I have no empathy for the guy, he's an asshole.
I guess people fighting for money were enjoying that too. Why don't you call them assholes? Were they from a different moral category? In fact, Durov wasn't hurting anyone, others did. And he stopped immediately when people got violent. If anything, Durov only exposed greedy violent assholes for everyone to take a note. It may count as a service to the public.
And many people around were not even trying to get into this, proving that no one was forced to participate. But you prefer to not look at that fact.
And many people around were not even trying to get into this, proving that no one was forced to participate. But you prefer to not look at that fact.
Realistically, I don't think Snowden needs a job. Not for income at any rate. There's no shortage of very wealthy people willing to support him for opposing the U.S. government.
Yeah, but there's nothing worse than boredom for a computer guy. And besides, protecting the user privacy is probably something he cares about.
> Yeah, but there's nothing worse than boredom for a computer guy.
If he has no problems getting money, the boredom is easily alleviated by having access to a computer and internet. He could just work for himself.
If he has no problems getting money, the boredom is easily alleviated by having access to a computer and internet. He could just work for himself.
True that. I would do the same after all... there's plenty of interesting stuff to work on.
If I were him, a full-time job at a reputable company would be the last thing I'd want. Then everyone knows where you are, when you're there, etc.
A huge number of people would love to see him disappear (permanently)...
I'd be laying low, maybe writing a book about the whole thing and releasing it via a third party, if it was a matter of making income while staying off-grid.
A huge number of people would love to see him disappear (permanently)...
I'd be laying low, maybe writing a book about the whole thing and releasing it via a third party, if it was a matter of making income while staying off-grid.
You don't need to be working in a specific place if you run computer-related activities. Also TOR.
Is Putin Russia's Obama, as well?
Sure I guess, after all it's basically just who runs the largest social network in the country. I guess Putin is the Obama of Russia in that he's the man in charge there.
Excuse me for anarchistic correction here.
None of them is a man in charge. Both of them think of themselves as being "in charge". And maybe some "voters" even support that idea. But that does not change matters for those who didn't vote for or support them (including all foreign citizens). For them, Putin/Obama are just bullies from high school. Most of the time they don't have to do anything with your life, but sometimes their associates in form of judges/cops/army/etc are coming to you and forcing you to do things you don't approve. E.g. sponsoring a war, or "national project", or having your money diluted by inflation or something else.
None of them is a man in charge. Both of them think of themselves as being "in charge". And maybe some "voters" even support that idea. But that does not change matters for those who didn't vote for or support them (including all foreign citizens). For them, Putin/Obama are just bullies from high school. Most of the time they don't have to do anything with your life, but sometimes their associates in form of judges/cops/army/etc are coming to you and forcing you to do things you don't approve. E.g. sponsoring a war, or "national project", or having your money diluted by inflation or something else.
Sorry, I didn't mean to necessarily endorse either of them. I just mean if you check the fact sheets there's normally a field for "leader" which has their name listed after.
Wiktionary gave me the following:
"in charge (not comparable)
Having the responsibility of leading or overseeing.
He left his daughter in charge of watching her younger sisters.
Having the power of command or control.
This internet browser puts you in charge of your personal settings. "
Both of these men have a great deal of the power of command and control in their respective countries. The recent leaks have made it also very clear that they are "overseeing" heh. As for leadership that's a sticky subject that is way too philosophical for me to touch right now.
Both of these men have a great deal of the power of command and control in their respective countries. The recent leaks have made it also very clear that they are "overseeing" heh. As for leadership that's a sticky subject that is way too philosophical for me to touch right now.
The title of this article is typical Americanism...
So true. Americans (from US) deserve a better and less provincial mainstream media. "Russia's Mark Zuckerberg" is a ridiculous title.
'Owner of Russian social network offers Edward Snowden a job' is pretty clunky, and if you titled the article 'Pavel Durov offers Edward Snowden a job', it would be meaningless for 99.99% of its American readers. The title as it is does a decent job conveying the contents.
Or are Americans to be blamed for not knowing the owner of a social service hardly anyone here uses?
Or are Americans to be blamed for not knowing the owner of a social service hardly anyone here uses?
"Pavel Durov, founder of Russia's biggest social networking site, offers Snowden a job" could've worked. Of course "Americans" aren't to be blamed for this. I'm merely suggesting that they deserve better from media that is giving them a false culturally-superior image.
> On the same day, Pavel Durov, CEO of the social network VKontakte, offered Snowden a job as a security software developer.
In his career, hasn't Snowden been more of a sys admin type?[1]. Putting all the hoopla/outrage over his leaks aside, from a career perspective, would Snowden be qualified for a developer role? I guess my question is whether Durov's motivation is to get PR points or to get a suitable engineer for that role.
[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/us/job-title-key-to-inner-...
In his career, hasn't Snowden been more of a sys admin type?[1]. Putting all the hoopla/outrage over his leaks aside, from a career perspective, would Snowden be qualified for a developer role? I guess my question is whether Durov's motivation is to get PR points or to get a suitable engineer for that role.
[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/us/job-title-key-to-inner-...
I'd imagine both potentially, he could always work in a security system administrator role alongside the main development team.
Definitely good PR though.
Definitely good PR though.
That's what I'm saying, it's no more than just stupid PR aimed at laymen.
Aside: the CNN mobile site made it almost impossible to get the address bar to show in Safari or Chrome on iPhone. I've never seen this antipattern on a mobile site before.
Don't believe everything you read, first, that guy ('Russian zuckerberg') is a douche known for his freaky escapades like throwing money out of the office's window and watching people fight for them, second.
What is he proud about? That Snowden became a pawn in Putin's game while our own Russian protesters get prosecuted in fake cases? He's just one dumb motherfucker who got rich by stealing the facebook idea.
What is he proud about? That Snowden became a pawn in Putin's game while our own Russian protesters get prosecuted in fake cases? He's just one dumb motherfucker who got rich by stealing the facebook idea.
Or you don't know little more about VK and Durov, or you just envy.
How about instead of stumbling about intellectually like a mob intent on hating the NSA, we set a few things straight:
* This is not indicative of Russia as a collective endorsing or supporting Snowden. One man residing in Russia, a Russian national, offered Snowden a job relevant to his experience. This article says nothing about the public perception of Snowden in Russia. Anything else is supposition. All he has is asylum and a job. Both things can be granted by a huge minority of people in government, of which we do not yet understand their obscured motivations and agendas.
* I don't think we should be praising Russia for this - let's remember Russia is the place where homosexuality is almost scathingly rejected, human rights violations are normal, and freedom of the press is in effect...except when it's not. Yes, they gave Snowden asylum. I wonder what they could gain from that aside from just being a bunch of good guys...come on. This says nothing about the Russian people understanding America's problems, and they are certainly not an ideal to strive towards (nothing against Russians as a people, but a lot of their laws are deplorable by modern standards).
* I wouldn't trust the job, and I wouldn't take it. I wouldn't want any solid association with anyone, high-roller or not, who could be leveraged against me. This is paranoid, but whatever is uncertain about the NSA scandal, it's certain the government (or members thereof) is probably desperate to retrieve Snowden.
* Again, as I have said repeatedly since this all came out - don't let your outrage at the (vastly exaggerated) NSA scandal prevent you from seeing the truth - as a government agency, the NSA is largely beneficial to our country, and we shouldn't seek to disband it. Rather, we should correct its abuses and continue forward. I clearly see the black and white "us and them" mentality being tosses around with the NSA, Russia, Snowden and the U.S. government in the comment threads here and it's misinformed.
* This is not indicative of Russia as a collective endorsing or supporting Snowden. One man residing in Russia, a Russian national, offered Snowden a job relevant to his experience. This article says nothing about the public perception of Snowden in Russia. Anything else is supposition. All he has is asylum and a job. Both things can be granted by a huge minority of people in government, of which we do not yet understand their obscured motivations and agendas.
* I don't think we should be praising Russia for this - let's remember Russia is the place where homosexuality is almost scathingly rejected, human rights violations are normal, and freedom of the press is in effect...except when it's not. Yes, they gave Snowden asylum. I wonder what they could gain from that aside from just being a bunch of good guys...come on. This says nothing about the Russian people understanding America's problems, and they are certainly not an ideal to strive towards (nothing against Russians as a people, but a lot of their laws are deplorable by modern standards).
* I wouldn't trust the job, and I wouldn't take it. I wouldn't want any solid association with anyone, high-roller or not, who could be leveraged against me. This is paranoid, but whatever is uncertain about the NSA scandal, it's certain the government (or members thereof) is probably desperate to retrieve Snowden.
* Again, as I have said repeatedly since this all came out - don't let your outrage at the (vastly exaggerated) NSA scandal prevent you from seeing the truth - as a government agency, the NSA is largely beneficial to our country, and we shouldn't seek to disband it. Rather, we should correct its abuses and continue forward. I clearly see the black and white "us and them" mentality being tosses around with the NSA, Russia, Snowden and the U.S. government in the comment threads here and it's misinformed.
Please note:
1) U.S. is 32nd in the world when it comes to freedom of the press. 2) U.S. is also pro-torture and quite clearly anti-human rights, with their judicial system being just as corrupt as Russia's, if not more(See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-judge-re...). I can go on and on about Gitmo, overthrowing foreign governments(Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Gaza strip) et cetera et cetera. U.S. doesn't really have a clean record when it comes to human rights abuses.
The only difference is that the U.S. hides behind "Justice!" propaganda and americans believe it, but everybody in eastern europe knows that Putin is quite clearly against democracy, and he doesn't try to hide it.
I'm not saying that Russia is better, I'm just saying that it's naive to think that U.S. is much better, with its imperialist politics (Assange/Sweden case and forcing a president's plane to land).
1) U.S. is 32nd in the world when it comes to freedom of the press. 2) U.S. is also pro-torture and quite clearly anti-human rights, with their judicial system being just as corrupt as Russia's, if not more(See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-judge-re...). I can go on and on about Gitmo, overthrowing foreign governments(Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Gaza strip) et cetera et cetera. U.S. doesn't really have a clean record when it comes to human rights abuses.
The only difference is that the U.S. hides behind "Justice!" propaganda and americans believe it, but everybody in eastern europe knows that Putin is quite clearly against democracy, and he doesn't try to hide it.
I'm not saying that Russia is better, I'm just saying that it's naive to think that U.S. is much better, with its imperialist politics (Assange/Sweden case and forcing a president's plane to land).
We didn't throw the Dixie chicks in jail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot
I mean, the US has tons of problems and what's really disturbing are the trend lines -- seems like liberty peaked somewhere in the mid 70s with the CIA hearings.
But Russia being nicer than the US to US dissidents means nothing -- how do they act towards their own dissidents?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot
I mean, the US has tons of problems and what's really disturbing are the trend lines -- seems like liberty peaked somewhere in the mid 70s with the CIA hearings.
But Russia being nicer than the US to US dissidents means nothing -- how do they act towards their own dissidents?
Agreed. Jailing Pussy Riot was/is definitely a pursuit of political persecution.
Well, technically, Russia acted very lawfully in this case - they did not have an extradition treaty with the U.S., and Snowden sought political asylum.
I'd like to think that behind the scenes, Putin just enjoyed poking a stick in Obama's eye, but I'm sure he had more rational reasons for resisting the U.S. than just personal pleasure.
Well, technically, Russia acted very lawfully in this case - they did not have an extradition treaty with the U.S., and Snowden sought political asylum.
I'd like to think that behind the scenes, Putin just enjoyed poking a stick in Obama's eye, but I'm sure he had more rational reasons for resisting the U.S. than just personal pleasure.
Thank you for the citations. I agree with you on all points, my point was simply that Russia is not a superlative example either. Both the U.S. and Russia are locked in a murky political limbo with all sorts of controversies, but neither should be a shining example to the other.
Russia has (as other commenters and myself noted elsewhere) historically been against privacy and press freedom when it's inconvenient for them, and has a host of other human rights violations. But you're right, I'm definitely not attacking Russia from a superior position as an American here :)
Russia has (as other commenters and myself noted elsewhere) historically been against privacy and press freedom when it's inconvenient for them, and has a host of other human rights violations. But you're right, I'm definitely not attacking Russia from a superior position as an American here :)
> This article says nothing about the public perception of Snowden in Russia.
Except it does, paragraph eight:
> An opinion survey conducted by Russian news agency RIA Novosti shows 51% of Russians back Snowden's decision to leak the NSA information, and 43% were in favor of Russia granting him asylum, according to the Levada Center poll.
(edit: i appreciate the position you're defending here, re: reform vs. abolition, and how that is pretty tricky in this environment. the abolitionists here definitely have some tunnel vision issues going on).
Except it does, paragraph eight:
> An opinion survey conducted by Russian news agency RIA Novosti shows 51% of Russians back Snowden's decision to leak the NSA information, and 43% were in favor of Russia granting him asylum, according to the Levada Center poll.
(edit: i appreciate the position you're defending here, re: reform vs. abolition, and how that is pretty tricky in this environment. the abolitionists here definitely have some tunnel vision issues going on).
[deleted]
Just a publicity stunt.
How does a job offer help him, or anyone else, for that matter? I'm not sure job hunting is his first priority right now.
There must be hundreds of businesses out there who would offer him a job for novelty's sake.
There must be hundreds of businesses out there who would offer him a job for novelty's sake.
I think computer guys hate boredom ;)
Old news, it's been a week since.
We had the story (via Gigaom) posted here
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6140948
but nobody picked up on it and that post is practically unresurrectable. Reposting is legitimate, I think.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6140948
but nobody picked up on it and that post is practically unresurrectable. Reposting is legitimate, I think.
dang ... i posted this article here 5 days ago. enjoy my karma teawithcarl xD
Mark Zuckerberg Facebook Adversiting managent debug bug, açık
Even Russians get it... Why don't more Americans get it?