4 ms·

So you would trust anything he says on face value? Regardless of what he might stand to gain? My only point is that having a substantial amount of faith in anyo

So you would trust anything he says on face value? Regardless of what he might stand to gain? My only point is that having a substantial amount of faith in anyone, when the stakes are high, is folly. That's the entire point of blockchain technology. I'm not openly accusing him of anything. Im only stating that, as for myself, I regard the statement (given its content) with a reasonable amount of suspicion. Again, you may disagree.

spurcell93 9y ago
I wonder if you're conflating skepticism with suspicion. I don't believe it's a meaningless distinction.
- tambienben 9y ago
  I concede to your point. I should probably have used different language.
Fnoord 9y ago
> My only point is that having a substantial amount of faith in anyone, when the stakes are high, is folly. Because he has credibility due to his track record. That's the basis of how networking works. The authors of software such as TLS, Whonix, Tor, Tails, Debian, all have a certain amount of credibility within their peers as well as the general public. We stand on the shoulders of giants. Yes, credibility can be abused; as a matter of fact, he did abuse his credibility. Snowden broke his credibility to the NSA (and US government), but for a greater good of both the people of the USA as well as the international community. The price he paid? He lost his well paid job, he lost seeing his family and friends, he lost the luxury life in the USA, his house and any and all of his assets, and a substantial part of the USA hates him (tho a more vast, significant part in the world, is thankful). Ie. his credibility with the rest of the world has substantially increased. Now, you may think he may abuse his credibility, and it'd be a great plot for a movie, but that doesn't make it realistic. And why? Isn't the same true for any programmer on Zcash, Bitcoin, Etherium, and anything else? If you claim you cannot trust anyone, how can you live with yourself? Are you sure that's air you're breathing? Are you sure the color white is white? You'll end up with a full blown paranoid psychosis if you go with that line of reasoning (speaking from personal experience as well here). My point is that, at the very basic level, we need to trust and take some basics for granted (and, all of us do). So what we need from you, is some kind of facts (not theory) as to why we cannot trust Snowden. The fact, as far as I can tell, contradict what you wrote: Snowden hasn't acted in the past based on financial gains. For example, he didn't sell NSA information to media or foreign agencies. Instead, his actions were solely based on moral grounds plus personal survival (hence he ended up in Russia). I'd like to end my post that, yes, people who are psychopaths would very well end up doing something you described. I have no indication Snowden is a psychopath; tho I'm not sure about those he worked for at the CIA and NSA.
- tambienben 9y ago
  >The authors of software such as TLS, Whonix, Tor, Tails, Debian, all have a certain amount of credibility... All of which are open source == independently verifiable. TOR would not be recommended as highly as it is if it were a closed-source binary. >If you claim you cannot trust anyone, how can you live with yourself? Hilarious when people speak down to you like this. You're inflating my (very clear, i feel) statement to mean something I don't think i said. >I'd like to end my post that, yes, people who are psychopaths would very well end up doing something you described. For someone who claims to have had issues with mental stability, you seem very quick to use that label. /Anyone/ is capable of /anything/. The only variable is choice. There are many variables which can factor into people justifying immoral actions at any given time. Its easy to demonize others whom you disagree with, but you would do well to understand that the reality is not as simple as 'us vs. them'. Every single actor on the world stage has their own reasons and motivations for what they do. Not all of them align with your personal wellbeing.
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    > All of which are open source == independently verifiable. Sure, sure. Independently verifiable. That's why we had the Debian OpenSSL PRNG fiasco [1]. Your reponse to deterministic builds? "Not needed, its open source after all, independently verifiable." Of course it is needed, just because its open source doesn't mean you can trust the provided binaries. Heck, there was a time where Debian didn't even sign .deb packages. Also, nevermind the spaghetti of OpenSSL and Heartbleed which lead to BoringSSL and LibreSSL. Yet, its important to realize we don't assume malice here. We don't assume these people who did this were evil until we have substantial proof. Their track record and positions suggest such as well. We assume they're innocent (albeit, ignorant), and that is BTW also in the HN guidelines. > Hilarious when people speak down to you like this. You're inflating my (very clear, i feel) statement to mean something I don't think i said. How so? You claim we should be suspicious of everyone. At the same time, you provided no proof which suggests we should doubt Snowden's motives, generally or specifically. Only vague rhetoric. > Its easy to demonize others whom you disagree with No, stop shifting the blame. YOU are the one who is demonizing someone else (Snowden) without anything to back up your claims. Instead of this theater, put your money where your mouth is and show us your proof. [1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number_b.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number...

spurcell93 9y ago

I wonder if you're conflating skepticism with suspicion. I don't believe it's a meaningless distinction.

tambienben 9y ago
I concede to your point. I should probably have used different language.

Fnoord 9y ago

> My only point is that having a substantial amount of faith in anyone, when the stakes are high, is folly. Because he has credibility due to his track record. That's the basis of how networking works. The authors of software such as TLS, Whonix, Tor, Tails, Debian, all have a certain amount of credibility within their peers as well as the general public. We stand on the shoulders of giants. Yes, credibility can be abused; as a matter of fact, he did abuse his credibility. Snowden broke his credibility to the NSA (and US government), but for a greater good of both the people of the USA as well as the international community. The price he paid? He lost his well paid job, he lost seeing his family and friends, he lost the luxury life in the USA, his house and any and all of his assets, and a substantial part of the USA hates him (tho a more vast, significant part in the world, is thankful). Ie. his credibility with the rest of the world has substantially increased. Now, you may think he may abuse his credibility, and it'd be a great plot for a movie, but that doesn't make it realistic. And why? Isn't the same true for any programmer on Zcash, Bitcoin, Etherium, and anything else? If you claim you cannot trust anyone, how can you live with yourself? Are you sure that's air you're breathing? Are you sure the color white is white? You'll end up with a full blown paranoid psychosis if you go with that line of reasoning (speaking from personal experience as well here). My point is that, at the very basic level, we need to trust and take some basics for granted (and, all of us do). So what we need from you, is some kind of facts (not theory) as to why we cannot trust Snowden. The fact, as far as I can tell, contradict what you wrote: Snowden hasn't acted in the past based on financial gains. For example, he didn't sell NSA information to media or foreign agencies. Instead, his actions were solely based on moral grounds plus personal survival (hence he ended up in Russia). I'd like to end my post that, yes, people who are psychopaths would very well end up doing something you described. I have no indication Snowden is a psychopath; tho I'm not sure about those he worked for at the CIA and NSA.

tambienben 9y ago
>The authors of software such as TLS, Whonix, Tor, Tails, Debian, all have a certain amount of credibility... All of which are open source == independently verifiable. TOR would not be recommended as highly as it is if it were a closed-source binary. >If you claim you cannot trust anyone, how can you live with yourself? Hilarious when people speak down to you like this. You're inflating my (very clear, i feel) statement to mean something I don't think i said. >I'd like to end my post that, yes, people who are psychopaths would very well end up doing something you described. For someone who claims to have had issues with mental stability, you seem very quick to use that label. /Anyone/ is capable of /anything/. The only variable is choice. There are many variables which can factor into people justifying immoral actions at any given time. Its easy to demonize others whom you disagree with, but you would do well to understand that the reality is not as simple as 'us vs. them'. Every single actor on the world stage has their own reasons and motivations for what they do. Not all of them align with your personal wellbeing.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  > All of which are open source == independently verifiable. Sure, sure. Independently verifiable. That's why we had the Debian OpenSSL PRNG fiasco [1]. Your reponse to deterministic builds? "Not needed, its open source after all, independently verifiable." Of course it is needed, just because its open source doesn't mean you can trust the provided binaries. Heck, there was a time where Debian didn't even sign .deb packages. Also, nevermind the spaghetti of OpenSSL and Heartbleed which lead to BoringSSL and LibreSSL. Yet, its important to realize we don't assume malice here. We don't assume these people who did this were evil until we have substantial proof. Their track record and positions suggest such as well. We assume they're innocent (albeit, ignorant), and that is BTW also in the HN guidelines. > Hilarious when people speak down to you like this. You're inflating my (very clear, i feel) statement to mean something I don't think i said. How so? You claim we should be suspicious of everyone. At the same time, you provided no proof which suggests we should doubt Snowden's motives, generally or specifically. Only vague rhetoric. > Its easy to demonize others whom you disagree with No, stop shifting the blame. YOU are the one who is demonizing someone else (Snowden) without anything to back up your claims. Instead of this theater, put your money where your mouth is and show us your proof. [1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number_b.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number...