7 ms·

Attention Federal Employees: If You See Something, Leak Something

91 points by saycheese 10y ago

elmerfud 10y ago
Asking people to uphold their sworn oath is one thing, but equating unlawful government abuses with getting a lawful tax write off.... Wow Is this going to be the "birther movement" equivalent against trump?
- tmuir 10y ago
  Equating means to show how two things are equal. Listing examples of various leaks is not equating them as equally damning or criminal. Stop extrapolating from singular data points to a preconceived conclusion. Put forth a falsefiable hypothesis, and weigh all available evidence. Dont allow prejudice to select the sources of that data.
  - elmerfud 10y ago
    The article writer picked the examples not I. Picking clear abuses of government power veiled (or not) as lawful and then listing clearly lawful activities of Trump as being in the same "leak worthy" statement is the writers bias in equating them. There is your evidence since it was to much to ask you to read the article.
    - tmuir 10y ago
      You've chosen to see the world through a binary lens: Either you're with us or against us. The answer to every extreme is to race as fast as possible to the opposite extreme. Shades of gray are illusions. Balance is an illusion. Compromise is an illusion. Either articles support my beliefs or they are false. Any two analogous subjects in the entire universe can be demonstrated to be similar, as well as demonstrated to be different. That is the inherent nature of similarity and analogy. If two analogous subjects were in fact identical in every way, they would cease to be two distinct entities, as they would be identical. In which jurisdiction of The United States of America is it "clearly lawful" to grab women by their genitalia without their consent? What evidence lead you to conclude that I did not read the article? How have you arrived at the unequivocal primacy of your own ideas?
      - elmerfud 10y ago
        "Because they let you" That is consent. Please point out this binary nature in my post. It's not there. You are the one reading with your bias goggles on. I'm pointing out that the article made a strong case for the need of leaks in actual cases on government abuse. Then they undermine their case by including targeted "hit pieces" as useful leaks. If it was unbias then where was the Hillary email leaks? Oh that's right, it again was something targeted to undermine and not to show the value of whistle blowers.
        tmuir 10y ago
        And Tina Turner head-butted Ike's fist, right?
        elmerfud 10y ago
        Troll much? Again you're equating two non-equatable things. I'm not sure what your point is as you're starting to not make sense. Where is the binary? You've not pointed it out. Saying that all things are equatable is just silly. Sure you can do it, just like you can mix metaphors, but it makes no sense to do so. Trying to defend the equation of unlawful government abuses and lawful behavior with your bizarre statements is just a prime example of twisted, frothing, hate, with no regard for reasonable discourse.
        tmuir 10y ago
        That's rich. The very paragraph in which I enumerate the examples that back up my assertion, you claim doesn't make sense. Let's keep the goal posts right where they are. After all, the audience left long ago. You can't understand why the intercept's article points out different leaks and how they show a variety of circumstances. Instead you can only see the two extremes. The "two" in my previous sentence is in reference to my initial assertion of your binary nature. The extremes are government conspiracy and sensationalism. You can't allow for a third or Nth option, because of your tendency to view the world in a binary nature. After all, binary means two possibilities. The actual shades of gray here are that information does not need to be damning proof of government conspiracy to be leak worthy. There is in fact an entire spectrum of leak worthiness. This is the true essence of this article. Even if you don't have direct evidence of an unequivocal treasonous crime being committed, there is value in leaking malfeasance of all sorts.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
kbutler 10y ago
The site claims to be non-partisan, but the only presidential names cited are Republican, and it ignores abuses and issues under Democratic administrations, except the NSA surveillance scandal. Admittedly, they are seeking input from disaffected people at a time when Republicans hold the presidency and both houses of Congress, but it seems they are so completely biased they think their examples are "non-partisan."
- pharrlax 10y ago
  Have a casual look at Glenn Greenwald's Twitter feed and then come back and tell me his news organization is partisan.
  - jnbiche 10y ago
    Agreed. I'm primarily a 3rd-party voter, and as such am highly attuned to the hypocrisy I see coming from supporters of both major parties. And in my mind, Greenwald has been extremely good at attacking corruption and authoritarianism from those in power, regardless of their party. Most hard-core Democrats strongly dislike him because of how he "treated" the Obama administration. On a personal level, Greenwald probably is somewhere between liberal and libertarian, but I'm quite sure he's neither Democrat nor Republican, and just as sure he favors neither "team" in his reporting.
  - joshuaheard 10y ago
    Maybe not partisan, but the article is clearly biased by only naming Republican administrations.
    - falcolas 10y ago
      The Intercept has been plenty critical of the Obama administration, from the drone strikes to the surveilence state, to their handling of Manning and Snowden. They're (imo) a bit on the tinfoil hat side of reporting, but they're hardly partisan. The simple fact is that now the administration is Republican, so any comments on the current administration are going to be about a Republican administration.
adgfadgdfsa545 10y ago
Having had my name smeared before by journalist from a certain "broadsheet" who took the truth and twisted it to make me look like some sort of criminal regarding a story where the parent company of this newspaper has sent my startup an injunction and this journalist was sent to harass me (no other papers, media printed the story because there was none) f^&k journalists! they will sell you down the river, ignore your side of the story and lie lie lie /posting from throwaway account
- noobermin 10y ago
  If you're throwaway, what harm is there in naming who you told, at least the publication. Will that yield too much info? There is wikileaks and him, Glenn Greenwald, who at least to us seem to be fair (dare I say honest?) journalists.
  - jackmott 10y ago
    Wikileaks who campaigned to make trump a president? The world has gone crazy.
    - fixxer 10y ago
      Campaigned? I think you meant "published leaked documents without taking a side", but whatever, keep on pretending HRC wasnt just a more presentable version of vile.
      - fffffffooop 10y ago
        If you read WikiLeaks' Twitter posts from September and October, you'll see that they definitely took a side in the election.
        uiri 10y ago
        I think your point would be stronger if your comment included a few links to the tweets in question.
deadalus 10y ago
This article would not have been posted if Hillary had won. The entire site reads like an anti-trump ad : https://theintercept.com/ https://theintercept.com/
- apozem 10y ago
  You need to learn more about The Intercept. Glenn Greenwald and his crowd spent the election cycle relentlessly attacking Clinton over her emails and Obama over his drone strikes.
  - belorn 10y ago
    Had you preferred he joined the relentlessly attacking of Trump over the leaked video recording? What is more important, the content of a private conversation between two people off-camera, or drone strikes? Or is the content of such private conversation more important than say, keeping a private server for government business and outside of official records?
    - tmuir 10y ago
      Why is only the most important topic worthy of discussion? Why can you only see the other side's extremities? Trump's admission of grabbing woman by their genitalia was a conversation he assumed would remain private. Podesta's emails were conversations he assumed would remain private. Yet, the naked partisans of our country somehow see the subject matter of one as the the important take away, while the method of acquisition as the distraction. Those same naked partisans, without any modicum of irony see the other matter in the complete opposite terms: the method of acquisition is paramount, and absolves the content discovered. Por que no las dos?
tossacct444 10y ago
There's definitely an agenda in place on HN. Every comment even remotely pro Trump has been downvoted to grey text.
- jackmott 10y ago
  yes, that is the "we are not crazy people agenda". get used to it. we will keep not being crazy anf resist the crazy people at every turn. go away.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sctb 10y ago
  I don't think see that as a particularly strong correlation here. I see comments on both sides that are grey or dead, many of which have clearly violated the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
losteverything 10y ago
This is a great resource for people who make fake news
fixxer 10y ago
Lol. You actually created an account just to make this comment? Implication you're a lurker and THIS was the comment that brought you into the fold OR you think you're saying something so provactative that it will cost you karma. I'm so thoroughly unimpressed. Also, I disagree.
- fffffffooop 10y ago
  Lol. Thanks for dismissing my comment by starting your comment with lol
  - fixxer 10y ago
    Comment under your regular account and stop giving a shit about the score.
    - fffffffooop 10y ago
      I don't have a regular account. You mocked me for signing up for an account to give an honest opinion.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Welcome to Hacker News! While it happens on occasion, Hacker News isn't primarily for engaging on political or ideological topics. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Especially with a new account, I encourage you to steer clear of contentious issues, as new accounts are frequently abused specifically to do so.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

91 points by saycheese 10y ago

Asking people to uphold their sworn oath is one thing, but equating unlawful government abuses with getting a lawful tax write off.... Wow Is this going to be the "birther movement" equivalent against trump?

tmuir 10y ago
Equating means to show how two things are equal. Listing examples of various leaks is not equating them as equally damning or criminal. Stop extrapolating from singular data points to a preconceived conclusion. Put forth a falsefiable hypothesis, and weigh all available evidence. Dont allow prejudice to select the sources of that data.
- elmerfud 10y ago
  The article writer picked the examples not I. Picking clear abuses of government power veiled (or not) as lawful and then listing clearly lawful activities of Trump as being in the same "leak worthy" statement is the writers bias in equating them. There is your evidence since it was to much to ask you to read the article.
  - tmuir 10y ago
    You've chosen to see the world through a binary lens: Either you're with us or against us. The answer to every extreme is to race as fast as possible to the opposite extreme. Shades of gray are illusions. Balance is an illusion. Compromise is an illusion. Either articles support my beliefs or they are false. Any two analogous subjects in the entire universe can be demonstrated to be similar, as well as demonstrated to be different. That is the inherent nature of similarity and analogy. If two analogous subjects were in fact identical in every way, they would cease to be two distinct entities, as they would be identical. In which jurisdiction of The United States of America is it "clearly lawful" to grab women by their genitalia without their consent? What evidence lead you to conclude that I did not read the article? How have you arrived at the unequivocal primacy of your own ideas?
    - elmerfud 10y ago
      "Because they let you" That is consent. Please point out this binary nature in my post. It's not there. You are the one reading with your bias goggles on. I'm pointing out that the article made a strong case for the need of leaks in actual cases on government abuse. Then they undermine their case by including targeted "hit pieces" as useful leaks. If it was unbias then where was the Hillary email leaks? Oh that's right, it again was something targeted to undermine and not to show the value of whistle blowers.
      - tmuir 10y ago
        And Tina Turner head-butted Ike's fist, right?
        elmerfud 10y ago
        Troll much? Again you're equating two non-equatable things. I'm not sure what your point is as you're starting to not make sense. Where is the binary? You've not pointed it out. Saying that all things are equatable is just silly. Sure you can do it, just like you can mix metaphors, but it makes no sense to do so. Trying to defend the equation of unlawful government abuses and lawful behavior with your bizarre statements is just a prime example of twisted, frothing, hate, with no regard for reasonable discourse.
        tmuir 10y ago
        That's rich. The very paragraph in which I enumerate the examples that back up my assertion, you claim doesn't make sense. Let's keep the goal posts right where they are. After all, the audience left long ago. You can't understand why the intercept's article points out different leaks and how they show a variety of circumstances. Instead you can only see the two extremes. The "two" in my previous sentence is in reference to my initial assertion of your binary nature. The extremes are government conspiracy and sensationalism. You can't allow for a third or Nth option, because of your tendency to view the world in a binary nature. After all, binary means two possibilities. The actual shades of gray here are that information does not need to be damning proof of government conspiracy to be leak worthy. There is in fact an entire spectrum of leak worthiness. This is the true essence of this article. Even if you don't have direct evidence of an unequivocal treasonous crime being committed, there is value in leaking malfeasance of all sorts.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

kbutler 10y ago

The site claims to be non-partisan, but the only presidential names cited are Republican, and it ignores abuses and issues under Democratic administrations, except the NSA surveillance scandal. Admittedly, they are seeking input from disaffected people at a time when Republicans hold the presidency and both houses of Congress, but it seems they are so completely biased they think their examples are "non-partisan."

pharrlax 10y ago
Have a casual look at Glenn Greenwald's Twitter feed and then come back and tell me his news organization is partisan.
- jnbiche 10y ago
  Agreed. I'm primarily a 3rd-party voter, and as such am highly attuned to the hypocrisy I see coming from supporters of both major parties. And in my mind, Greenwald has been extremely good at attacking corruption and authoritarianism from those in power, regardless of their party. Most hard-core Democrats strongly dislike him because of how he "treated" the Obama administration. On a personal level, Greenwald probably is somewhere between liberal and libertarian, but I'm quite sure he's neither Democrat nor Republican, and just as sure he favors neither "team" in his reporting.
- joshuaheard 10y ago
  Maybe not partisan, but the article is clearly biased by only naming Republican administrations.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    The Intercept has been plenty critical of the Obama administration, from the drone strikes to the surveilence state, to their handling of Manning and Snowden. They're (imo) a bit on the tinfoil hat side of reporting, but they're hardly partisan. The simple fact is that now the administration is Republican, so any comments on the current administration are going to be about a Republican administration.

adgfadgdfsa545 10y ago

Having had my name smeared before by journalist from a certain "broadsheet" who took the truth and twisted it to make me look like some sort of criminal regarding a story where the parent company of this newspaper has sent my startup an injunction and this journalist was sent to harass me (no other papers, media printed the story because there was none) f^&k journalists! they will sell you down the river, ignore your side of the story and lie lie lie /posting from throwaway account

noobermin 10y ago
If you're throwaway, what harm is there in naming who you told, at least the publication. Will that yield too much info? There is wikileaks and him, Glenn Greenwald, who at least to us seem to be fair (dare I say honest?) journalists.
- jackmott 10y ago
  Wikileaks who campaigned to make trump a president? The world has gone crazy.
  - fixxer 10y ago
    Campaigned? I think you meant "published leaked documents without taking a side", but whatever, keep on pretending HRC wasnt just a more presentable version of vile.
    - fffffffooop 10y ago
      If you read WikiLeaks' Twitter posts from September and October, you'll see that they definitely took a side in the election.
      - uiri 10y ago
        I think your point would be stronger if your comment included a few links to the tweets in question.

deadalus 10y ago

This article would not have been posted if Hillary had won. The entire site reads like an anti-trump ad : https://theintercept.com/ https://theintercept.com/

apozem 10y ago
You need to learn more about The Intercept. Glenn Greenwald and his crowd spent the election cycle relentlessly attacking Clinton over her emails and Obama over his drone strikes.
- belorn 10y ago
  Had you preferred he joined the relentlessly attacking of Trump over the leaked video recording? What is more important, the content of a private conversation between two people off-camera, or drone strikes? Or is the content of such private conversation more important than say, keeping a private server for government business and outside of official records?
  - tmuir 10y ago
    Why is only the most important topic worthy of discussion? Why can you only see the other side's extremities? Trump's admission of grabbing woman by their genitalia was a conversation he assumed would remain private. Podesta's emails were conversations he assumed would remain private. Yet, the naked partisans of our country somehow see the subject matter of one as the the important take away, while the method of acquisition as the distraction. Those same naked partisans, without any modicum of irony see the other matter in the complete opposite terms: the method of acquisition is paramount, and absolves the content discovered. Por que no las dos?

tossacct444 10y ago

There's definitely an agenda in place on HN. Every comment even remotely pro Trump has been downvoted to grey text.

jackmott 10y ago
yes, that is the "we are not crazy people agenda". get used to it. we will keep not being crazy anf resist the crazy people at every turn. go away.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sctb 10y ago
I don't think see that as a particularly strong correlation here. I see comments on both sides that are grey or dead, many of which have clearly violated the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

losteverything 10y ago

This is a great resource for people who make fake news

fixxer 10y ago

Lol. You actually created an account just to make this comment? Implication you're a lurker and THIS was the comment that brought you into the fold OR you think you're saying something so provactative that it will cost you karma. I'm so thoroughly unimpressed. Also, I disagree.

fffffffooop 10y ago
Lol. Thanks for dismissing my comment by starting your comment with lol
- fixxer 10y ago
  Comment under your regular account and stop giving a shit about the score.
  - fffffffooop 10y ago
    I don't have a regular account. You mocked me for signing up for an account to give an honest opinion.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Welcome to Hacker News! While it happens on occasion, Hacker News isn't primarily for engaging on political or ideological topics. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Especially with a new account, I encourage you to steer clear of contentious issues, as new accounts are frequently abused specifically to do so.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]