5 ms·

I'm not an American. Again, your presenting the case as being some mere reconnaissance operation to "ascertain the extent of Huawei's relationship with the Chi

I'm not an American. Again, your presenting the case as being some mere reconnaissance operation to "ascertain the extent of Huawei's relationship with the Chinese government" is quite overloaded itself, since the linked article did mention exploiting products en masse with one of the aims being to roam in foreign countries' telecom networks by the proxy of Huawei products, and this including U.S. allies. This goes beyond information gathering and recon, and yes, could be construed as economic warfare (this does not at all imply a value judgment, but you seem to be taking the term as if it's a pejorative). Hell, the fact you brought up source code theft only strengthens such a description. If anyone but Snowden leaked this sort of information to the Chinese or Russians, there would be little debate about whether or not they deserved some sort of punishment for it. Again, you didn't state whether these were part of the leaks, or whether Snowden had specifically handed over information to a nation state. The connotations would be quite different depending on how it was revealed. This strengthened by the case not necessarily being in favor of the NSA, your emotional pleas notwithstanding.

throwaway1150 11y ago
> I'm not an American. Well, then it's little wonder that the prospect of him sharing classified information with the Chinese or Russians doesn't bother you all that much. However, I never would have guessed you to be non-American from your posts in this thread, particularly the one quoted below where you forcefully instruct us as to how and if (at all) we should punish those who violate our laws, and where the last sentence begins with the pronoun "we," which I foolishly took to refer to the citizens of the United States but apparently instead referred to some larger collective (perhaps the citizens of the world?): >That's exactly how it works. The law does not exist in isolation as an axiomatic rule. The intent and circumstances of an action are all taken into account. Legalism is tyranny, plain and simple. >Also, you are allowed to say "Yeah, he broke the law, but we don't give a fuck." It's called jury nullification. >As soon as you excuse the law because it doesn't "feel" right, you walk a shaky path to anarchy. >The United States hasn't been walking to the path of anarchy, but quite the opposite. We actually need more anarchy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10404739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10404739
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  It's flattering that you have no recourse but to retroactively reject/ignore all my statements based on identity politics. You have not yet clarified regarding "sharing classified information with Chinese or Russians", either. I'm also uncertain of how exactly I have forcefully instructed anyone, unless you consider speech to be aggression. That said, though I am not of U.S. nationality neither by jus soli nor jus sanguinis, I do reside in the United States at present. Stay classy with your throwaway account.
  - throwaway1150 11y ago
    >You have not yet clarified regarding "sharing classified information with Chinese or Russians", either. You keep drawing some distinction without a difference between "the leaks" and Snowden "directly handing over" the documents; either way, he is the author of their release and ultimately responsible for the consequences, and Americans are right to be angry with him for it. > That said, though I am not of U.S. nationality neither by jus soli nor jus sanguinis, I do reside in the United States at present. Stay classy with your throwaway account. You're a guest in this country; perhaps you could try acting like one?
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      The difference is one is a private transaction that directly insinuates an act of treason and further a clear allegiance (or at least sympathy) to the state one is dealing with. A leak is public, and by definition accessible to everyone. It is thus a misnomer to frame it in terms of benefiting any particular nation states, as it's now public information. It's spoilt, a sunk cost. Moreover, the intent of the aggregate leak (which is important in making a final decision) is that of raising awareness of government misconduct, and not of directly enriching an adversary's intelligence. The consequences then differ, as we could make a case of the positives outweighing the drawbacks and collateral. Moreover, I personally disagree that any party in the Huawei incident is a "good guy" (where you seem to consider the NSA to be unequivocally in the right). Of course you have a right to be angry with Snowden if you deem the consequences of the actions to have had sufficient negative blowback. You're a guest in this country; perhaps you could try acting like one? Free speech until it hurts my feelings. What an American sentiment to advocate, throwaway. I salute you.

throwaway1150 11y ago

> I'm not an American. Well, then it's little wonder that the prospect of him sharing classified information with the Chinese or Russians doesn't bother you all that much. However, I never would have guessed you to be non-American from your posts in this thread, particularly the one quoted below where you forcefully instruct us as to how and if (at all) we should punish those who violate our laws, and where the last sentence begins with the pronoun "we," which I foolishly took to refer to the citizens of the United States but apparently instead referred to some larger collective (perhaps the citizens of the world?): >That's exactly how it works. The law does not exist in isolation as an axiomatic rule. The intent and circumstances of an action are all taken into account. Legalism is tyranny, plain and simple. >Also, you are allowed to say "Yeah, he broke the law, but we don't give a fuck." It's called jury nullification. >As soon as you excuse the law because it doesn't "feel" right, you walk a shaky path to anarchy. >The United States hasn't been walking to the path of anarchy, but quite the opposite. We actually need more anarchy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10404739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10404739

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
It's flattering that you have no recourse but to retroactively reject/ignore all my statements based on identity politics. You have not yet clarified regarding "sharing classified information with Chinese or Russians", either. I'm also uncertain of how exactly I have forcefully instructed anyone, unless you consider speech to be aggression. That said, though I am not of U.S. nationality neither by jus soli nor jus sanguinis, I do reside in the United States at present. Stay classy with your throwaway account.
- throwaway1150 11y ago
  >You have not yet clarified regarding "sharing classified information with Chinese or Russians", either. You keep drawing some distinction without a difference between "the leaks" and Snowden "directly handing over" the documents; either way, he is the author of their release and ultimately responsible for the consequences, and Americans are right to be angry with him for it. > That said, though I am not of U.S. nationality neither by jus soli nor jus sanguinis, I do reside in the United States at present. Stay classy with your throwaway account. You're a guest in this country; perhaps you could try acting like one?
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    The difference is one is a private transaction that directly insinuates an act of treason and further a clear allegiance (or at least sympathy) to the state one is dealing with. A leak is public, and by definition accessible to everyone. It is thus a misnomer to frame it in terms of benefiting any particular nation states, as it's now public information. It's spoilt, a sunk cost. Moreover, the intent of the aggregate leak (which is important in making a final decision) is that of raising awareness of government misconduct, and not of directly enriching an adversary's intelligence. The consequences then differ, as we could make a case of the positives outweighing the drawbacks and collateral. Moreover, I personally disagree that any party in the Huawei incident is a "good guy" (where you seem to consider the NSA to be unequivocally in the right). Of course you have a right to be angry with Snowden if you deem the consequences of the actions to have had sufficient negative blowback. You're a guest in this country; perhaps you could try acting like one? Free speech until it hurts my feelings. What an American sentiment to advocate, throwaway. I salute you.