Snowden: Feds can't cover up leaks by 'murdering me'(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
Snowden: Feds can't cover up leaks by 'murdering me'
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589617-38/snowden-feds-cant-cover-up-leaks-by-murdering-me/
28 comments
Surely everyone had assumed this already? We know Glenn Greenwald has a large number of unreleased tidbits, and I'd guess he's quietly shared those around to trusted people to ensure the information would not be squashable.
By reasserting it, Snowden is also signalling that it is useless to go after him directly. Be it true or false, this is the only logical thing to say in his situation.
Every day this drags on, this guy seems more and more like the most self-righteous and self-aggrandizing douche on the planet.
And yes, much like when Aaron Schwatrz stories completely hijacked HN, I'm really looking forward to this story - which seems like it's increasingly becoming a non-story (or certainly blown waaaay out of proportion) as more facts come out - stops dominating HN.
I realize both of those terse statements probably aren't going to make me very popular around here.
And yes, much like when Aaron Schwatrz stories completely hijacked HN, I'm really looking forward to this story - which seems like it's increasingly becoming a non-story (or certainly blown waaaay out of proportion) as more facts come out - stops dominating HN.
I realize both of those terse statements probably aren't going to make me very popular around here.
Lets see:
1) Whistle blower calls attention to actions of their government.
2) Media instead focuses on the personal details of the whistle blower.
3) Whistle blower defends himself and tries to divert attention back on the actual material.
4) Whistle blower is considered "self-righteous and self aggrandizing" for defending himself from attacks that should have never been made in the first place.
Wonderful.
1) Whistle blower calls attention to actions of their government.
2) Media instead focuses on the personal details of the whistle blower.
3) Whistle blower defends himself and tries to divert attention back on the actual material.
4) Whistle blower is considered "self-righteous and self aggrandizing" for defending himself from attacks that should have never been made in the first place.
Wonderful.
Yes, let's attack his personality instead of talking about the mass surveillance that's going on right now. While we're at it, let's talk about his girlfriend.
I think this NSA case is getting way too air time on HackerNews. We're turning HN into the drudge report.
Snowden may well be a spy and we've made him into some kind of martyr/hero. His actions came out right around a major summit with China and he defected within their sphere of protection. Allows the chinese to paint us as the bad guy while appearing as a protector of free speech. Brilliant.
No one is talking about chinese industrial espionage now, which is arguably much more damaging to the US than reading people's yahoo email, particularly that of suspected terrorists. And this was most likely the point of the whole exercise.
The story needs to play out - let the facts unfold.
Snowden may well be a spy and we've made him into some kind of martyr/hero. His actions came out right around a major summit with China and he defected within their sphere of protection. Allows the chinese to paint us as the bad guy while appearing as a protector of free speech. Brilliant.
No one is talking about chinese industrial espionage now, which is arguably much more damaging to the US than reading people's yahoo email, particularly that of suspected terrorists. And this was most likely the point of the whole exercise.
The story needs to play out - let the facts unfold.
Not sure what you are trying to suggest here:
- We don't talk about this because it is not relevant?
- We don't talk about it because it takes focus away from the Chinese, who are the real villains here?
What exactly is your point?
- We don't talk about this because it is not relevant?
- We don't talk about it because it takes focus away from the Chinese, who are the real villains here?
What exactly is your point?
His point is that he doesn't like Snowden because of the Chinese angle so he doesn't want us to talk about it, but because that is a pretty stupid reason not to talk about something he is going to tell us that we should not talk about it because it is not relevant to HN.
Notice that almost all of the people who think that this issue is getting to much HN attention coincidentally also disagree with what he has done...
Notice that almost all of the people who think that this issue is getting to much HN attention coincidentally also disagree with what he has done...
His point is that HN is turning into a 'What did Snowden say today' channel.
Foreign espionage is arguably more damaging than a government possibly violating its own constitution and betraying the values its country is founded upon?
There always was, and will always be, other countries spying on you (and each other), but once the rights of the people are given up to the authority, it is very hard to take it back.
I hold the prospective that the freedom and prosperity of US are more or less based its foundation on its constitutions and the values it was founded on. It is very hard to agree that foreign espionage would be more damaging to the US as you described.
There always was, and will always be, other countries spying on you (and each other), but once the rights of the people are given up to the authority, it is very hard to take it back.
I hold the prospective that the freedom and prosperity of US are more or less based its foundation on its constitutions and the values it was founded on. It is very hard to agree that foreign espionage would be more damaging to the US as you described.
I do think it's pretty important to talk about this here, as it is "Major Tech Companies" that get pushed into this thing.
The more we know about avoiding it, etc, the better we are
The more we know about avoiding it, etc, the better we are
If he is indeed a spy, then the Americans have TWO problems to deal with. And it has absolutely no bearing on the current privacy discussion - the two problems are damaging in two (relatively) different aspects.
Want to bet? Clearly the Feds can do whatever they please.
I'd like to see more of this coming truth and less of this melodrama.
I kinda like the melodrama as much as or more than the story (the us/nsa being evil is no surprise), because this is one of the most cyberpunk things to happen in the last few years (TPB and stuxnet being others). I mean, their last name is Snowden! I could not think of a better one if I tried.
not that your point of getting down to brass facts is unreasonable, but the hype is part of the story, and getting more people interested is maybe important in getting lawmakers to maybe pay attention)
not that your point of getting down to brass facts is unreasonable, but the hype is part of the story, and getting more people interested is maybe important in getting lawmakers to maybe pay attention)
Is it just me, or does repeating this sort of assassination thing make anyone else more skeptical of Snowden?
Bradley Manning - already fragile psychologically - was thrown in solitary for years pending trial and subjected to treatment the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture deemed cruel and inhuman.
This for someone without a Top Secret clearance... I'd be nervous too.
This for someone without a Top Secret clearance... I'd be nervous too.
Do you really think that only other countries perform assassinations?
I think it's a little rich that Snowden is complaining about being labelled a traitor - morality aside, what he did seems like a pretty clear-cut case of treason from a legal standpoint (IANAL).
Where is he complaining about it? I see this:
"Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American"
"Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American"
There was something about not being able to get a fair trial stateside.
Although, I don't know what the laws are like in the States, but in Canada you can go to jail if you have security clearance and reveal information that if true would be classified. If the legal situation is similar in the US, he's pretty clearly guilty.
Although, I don't know what the laws are like in the States, but in Canada you can go to jail if you have security clearance and reveal information that if true would be classified. If the legal situation is similar in the US, he's pretty clearly guilty.
You're saying he shouldn't get a fair trial because it's a "clear-cut case" of him being a traitor. That is kind of the point, without a fair trial there is NO "case"; there is just power, blackmail and a whole lot of bootlicking.
What he did was disclose classified information. Which itself is illegal. But its a jump to automatically assume that disclosure of classified information is treason.
Now if he turns around and starts helping China with the information he has, then he will be pretty much done for.
Now if he turns around and starts helping China with the information he has, then he will be pretty much done for.
And if you don't set morality aside? There can be such a gap between "legal" and "just", and before anyone asks me to set morality aside, I would love to first hear their arguments for me doing that, other than that they do it.
I was merely saying that I don't feel like arguing the morality of it, whereas he'd need a very clever lawyer and a sympathetic judge to get out of the treason charge should he ever stand trial.
Actually, it looks like treason will be a hard sell in Snowden's case:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/edward-snowden-92687.h...
From someone who is a lawyer:
“I do not believe it is treason,” said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. “There is nothing to suggest that his motivation was to assist our enemies or a foreign power.”
The gist of the article is that they would most likely prosecute him for espionage (which doesn't require him to be spying "for" anybody), and that the treason/traitor allegations by officials are for rhetorical effect (though they mention it isn't entirely impossible to charge him with treason using some very tortured logic).
From someone who is a lawyer:
“I do not believe it is treason,” said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. “There is nothing to suggest that his motivation was to assist our enemies or a foreign power.”
The gist of the article is that they would most likely prosecute him for espionage (which doesn't require him to be spying "for" anybody), and that the treason/traitor allegations by officials are for rhetorical effect (though they mention it isn't entirely impossible to charge him with treason using some very tortured logic).
Interesting. Thanks for the heads up.
In contrast, Bradley Manning: 1. Released a bunch of stuff that was mostly embarassing to US diplomats, but not really evidence of criminal actions 2. Didn't really have much of a plan 3. Didn't get a chance to demonstrate clearly that he wasn't just "acting out", releasing everything he had clearance to access.
Snowden comes across here as being principled, deliberate, and smart about what he released, who he released it to, and what his personal plans were not to get black-bagged.