8 ms·

It's impossible to look at 46 years ago without seeing through the lens of four years ago, so I imagine people's opinions on Raines closely mirror their opinion

It's impossible to look at 46 years ago without seeing through the lens of four years ago, so I imagine people's opinions on Raines closely mirror their opinions on Snowden. Which is fine by me, as I think both Raines and Snowden should be viewed closer to the "heroic whistle-blowers" end of the spectrum. But I suspect there are many who see both Raines and Snowden as traitors. I'd be very interested in hearing the reasoning of someone who had different opinions on the two.

Bartweiss 9y ago
It seems likely that anyone with split opinions would support Raines over Snowden; the obvious difference between the two cases is J. Edgar Hoover. Snowden exposed a mass surveillance program, some of which appears to have been illegal. Raines did likewise, but also exposed a serious campaign of harassment against activists - one prosecuted by an FBI director who was apparently viewed as beyond the control of even the President. I think some of the more technocratic types I know might say Snowden's leaks were about "agencies doing what they should", while Raines' was a necessary reaction to an out-of-control administrator. If there are people who support Snowden but oppose Raines, I'd be fascinated to hear what rationale that uses - nothing comes to mind.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ikeboy 9y ago
  The first thing that would come to mind is that people may feel threatened by what Snowden revealed, but not by Raines
- gtcode 9y ago
  -
  - opportune 9y ago
    By damage do you mean indirect political damage stemming from the controversy surrounding Snowden, or direct damage to the US intel programs caused by the actual information that he released? To my knowledge there wasn't really any direct damage at all as a result of Snowden's actions (which is not always true of leakers, see Chelsea Manning)
    - gtcode 9y ago
      -
      - opportune 9y ago
        PGP was publicly accessible long before Snowden so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - obmelvin 9y ago
        Personally, I don't doubt that Snowden caused some damage to the IC community. However, I would argue that the benefit to people who would like to live in a modern democracy far outweighs that damage. I truly believe that the only reason more people are not be outraged by the IC's actions is by not understanding their capabilities. I'm a graduate student in CS and am still amazed at what they could do. There's no way in heck I expect my mother to appreciate the gravity of the danger of such a surveillance state because she can't even begin to comprehend what is possible. EDIT: why delete your comments? You should stand by your views even if others disagree. Well, not to the point of being stubborn, but in this case I don't get it.
        opportune 9y ago
        Confused as to the deletion of comments as well. The parent didn't seem to be alluding to any confidential or classified information specifically enough for it to matter, merely its existence, which is obviously already public knowledge
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    ...? I see this sort of comment every time Snowden comes up on HN. Someone alludes to secret knowledge about him, then makes a dramatic statement that doesn't have any actually-testable component. It's true, the extent of the damage Snowden caused may never be known - even if there wasn't any! Could you perhaps clarify any of this? I'm particularly interested by "the Honolulu hackerspace that he later used for his politics". To my knowledge, the only involvement he ever had was to throw a single crypto party there, which none of the attendees have described as being especially political or unusual. Hosting crypto parties at hackerspaces is a pretty standard practice from what I've seen. Did Snowden do something else political or detrimental at HiCapacity? And does that somehow tie into knowing "a thing or two" about him, given that no one at HiCapacity (or anywhere) seems to have known about the leaks until they were national news? edit: Seeing as the parent was deleted, I should say that there wasn't anything interesting there. A weird allusion to Snowden screwing up a hackerspace, but no actual substance to justify the mystery.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  Just making sure I understand your argument. Is the following hypothetical in line with your thinking? The important difference was if you agree with the administrations goals when they abuse power. So if Obama spies on all American's private conversations, only to stop only totally evil child pornographers... that's ok. But if future President Jeb Bush spies on all American's private conversations, in order to find Russian spies and retaliate against their countries interference in our election... that would be wrong.
  - wbl 9y ago
    Obama didn't do that. If Bush was going after people for political activity who weren't Russian agents your analogy would be correct.
    - tomohawk 9y ago
      Obama was no saint. https://sharylattkisson.com/2017/09/24/obama-era-surveillance-timeline/ https://sharylattkisson.com/2017/09/24/obama-era-surveillanc...
wyldfire 9y ago
How do Snowden and Greenwald feel about having collaborated with Wikileaks given that they seem totally discredited by the revelation of their correspondence w/the Trump campaign?
- maneesh 9y ago
  Why are they discredited?
  - timthelion 9y ago
    It appears that wikileaks did work directly with Trump Jr. to coordinate pro Trump leaks and campaigning [1]. Whether wikileaks was actually pro-Trump, or merely playing the part with the hope of developing a relationship which could lead to their acquisition of confidential information is unclear. "“Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” WikiLeaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax returns.” WikiLeaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and WikiLeaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump’s tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time “through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC).”" [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...
    - wyldfire 9y ago
      You left out the part that I find horrifying: > It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” WikiLeaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, “The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out.” > Trump Jr. did not respond to this message. "improve the perception of our impartiality" sounds as if "we're not impartial, and the world is figuring that out. If you have nothing to lose otherwise, please make it seem as if we were impartial."
pvg 9y ago
The people who broke into the FBI office uncovered, as they suspected, a massive illegal FBI program to surveil and disrupt entirely legitimate political opposition (among others). This was a direct and real threat to democracy. Snowden collected gigabytes classified documents the vast majority of which had nothing to do with anything questionable. The program he revealed was not obviously illegal and, however distasteful, compared to NSA programs that came to light just a few years before that, small potatoes. His trove then ended up in the hands of unfriendly intelligence services. It doesn't take mental contortions to view them quite differently.
- literallycancer 9y ago
  Great. As a European, I don't care at all whether the Congress thinks its legal to spy on me or not. I'll applaud anyone who takes a stand against mass surveillance. And it's not like anyone really asked the Congress either, is it? http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/ http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/ >ended up in the hands of unfriendly intelligence services Sucks to be the NSA, I guess?
  - pvg 9y ago
    Great. As a European I suspect as a branch of the US Government, the Congress of the US doesn't care much what you think about the extent of its powers either. I'm not sure how Snowden has helped you resolve this monumental impasse at all. I'll applaud anyone who takes a stand against mass surveillance. Yes, that's what makes Snowden and Manning interesting, they're a new kind of hero - heroes for people who don't read the news (or perhaps much at all). There was very little in their revelations that was new and things dramatically worse were reported previously without gigantic data dumps of completely unfiltered and unrelated data. None of these things set the internet ablaze, despite being far more serious. I don't wish either of them ill, don't think they're traitors or anything overwrought like that, have no trouble believing they were motivated by idealism, however naive and misguided. I'm happy Chelsea Manning got her sentence commuted. But heroes? Not really seeing it.
    - 9y ago

Bartweiss 9y ago

It seems likely that anyone with split opinions would support Raines over Snowden; the obvious difference between the two cases is J. Edgar Hoover. Snowden exposed a mass surveillance program, some of which appears to have been illegal. Raines did likewise, but also exposed a serious campaign of harassment against activists - one prosecuted by an FBI director who was apparently viewed as beyond the control of even the President. I think some of the more technocratic types I know might say Snowden's leaks were about "agencies doing what they should", while Raines' was a necessary reaction to an out-of-control administrator. If there are people who support Snowden but oppose Raines, I'd be fascinated to hear what rationale that uses - nothing comes to mind.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ikeboy 9y ago
The first thing that would come to mind is that people may feel threatened by what Snowden revealed, but not by Raines
gtcode 9y ago
-
- opportune 9y ago
  By damage do you mean indirect political damage stemming from the controversy surrounding Snowden, or direct damage to the US intel programs caused by the actual information that he released? To my knowledge there wasn't really any direct damage at all as a result of Snowden's actions (which is not always true of leakers, see Chelsea Manning)
  - gtcode 9y ago
    -
    - opportune 9y ago
      PGP was publicly accessible long before Snowden so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - obmelvin 9y ago
      Personally, I don't doubt that Snowden caused some damage to the IC community. However, I would argue that the benefit to people who would like to live in a modern democracy far outweighs that damage. I truly believe that the only reason more people are not be outraged by the IC's actions is by not understanding their capabilities. I'm a graduate student in CS and am still amazed at what they could do. There's no way in heck I expect my mother to appreciate the gravity of the danger of such a surveillance state because she can't even begin to comprehend what is possible. EDIT: why delete your comments? You should stand by your views even if others disagree. Well, not to the point of being stubborn, but in this case I don't get it.
      - opportune 9y ago
        Confused as to the deletion of comments as well. The parent didn't seem to be alluding to any confidential or classified information specifically enough for it to matter, merely its existence, which is obviously already public knowledge
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  ...? I see this sort of comment every time Snowden comes up on HN. Someone alludes to secret knowledge about him, then makes a dramatic statement that doesn't have any actually-testable component. It's true, the extent of the damage Snowden caused may never be known - even if there wasn't any! Could you perhaps clarify any of this? I'm particularly interested by "the Honolulu hackerspace that he later used for his politics". To my knowledge, the only involvement he ever had was to throw a single crypto party there, which none of the attendees have described as being especially political or unusual. Hosting crypto parties at hackerspaces is a pretty standard practice from what I've seen. Did Snowden do something else political or detrimental at HiCapacity? And does that somehow tie into knowing "a thing or two" about him, given that no one at HiCapacity (or anywhere) seems to have known about the leaks until they were national news? edit: Seeing as the parent was deleted, I should say that there wasn't anything interesting there. A weird allusion to Snowden screwing up a hackerspace, but no actual substance to justify the mystery.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
Just making sure I understand your argument. Is the following hypothetical in line with your thinking? The important difference was if you agree with the administrations goals when they abuse power. So if Obama spies on all American's private conversations, only to stop only totally evil child pornographers... that's ok. But if future President Jeb Bush spies on all American's private conversations, in order to find Russian spies and retaliate against their countries interference in our election... that would be wrong.
- wbl 9y ago
  Obama didn't do that. If Bush was going after people for political activity who weren't Russian agents your analogy would be correct.
  - tomohawk 9y ago
    Obama was no saint. https://sharylattkisson.com/2017/09/24/obama-era-surveillance-timeline/ https://sharylattkisson.com/2017/09/24/obama-era-surveillanc...

wyldfire 9y ago

How do Snowden and Greenwald feel about having collaborated with Wikileaks given that they seem totally discredited by the revelation of their correspondence w/the Trump campaign?

maneesh 9y ago
Why are they discredited?
- timthelion 9y ago
  It appears that wikileaks did work directly with Trump Jr. to coordinate pro Trump leaks and campaigning [1]. Whether wikileaks was actually pro-Trump, or merely playing the part with the hope of developing a relationship which could lead to their acquisition of confidential information is unclear. "“Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” WikiLeaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax returns.” WikiLeaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and WikiLeaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump’s tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time “through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC).”" [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...
  - wyldfire 9y ago
    You left out the part that I find horrifying: > It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” WikiLeaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, “The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out.” > Trump Jr. did not respond to this message. "improve the perception of our impartiality" sounds as if "we're not impartial, and the world is figuring that out. If you have nothing to lose otherwise, please make it seem as if we were impartial."

pvg 9y ago

The people who broke into the FBI office uncovered, as they suspected, a massive illegal FBI program to surveil and disrupt entirely legitimate political opposition (among others). This was a direct and real threat to democracy. Snowden collected gigabytes classified documents the vast majority of which had nothing to do with anything questionable. The program he revealed was not obviously illegal and, however distasteful, compared to NSA programs that came to light just a few years before that, small potatoes. His trove then ended up in the hands of unfriendly intelligence services. It doesn't take mental contortions to view them quite differently.

literallycancer 9y ago
Great. As a European, I don't care at all whether the Congress thinks its legal to spy on me or not. I'll applaud anyone who takes a stand against mass surveillance. And it's not like anyone really asked the Congress either, is it? http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/ http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/ >ended up in the hands of unfriendly intelligence services Sucks to be the NSA, I guess?
- pvg 9y ago
  Great. As a European I suspect as a branch of the US Government, the Congress of the US doesn't care much what you think about the extent of its powers either. I'm not sure how Snowden has helped you resolve this monumental impasse at all. I'll applaud anyone who takes a stand against mass surveillance. Yes, that's what makes Snowden and Manning interesting, they're a new kind of hero - heroes for people who don't read the news (or perhaps much at all). There was very little in their revelations that was new and things dramatically worse were reported previously without gigantic data dumps of completely unfiltered and unrelated data. None of these things set the internet ablaze, despite being far more serious. I don't wish either of them ill, don't think they're traitors or anything overwrought like that, have no trouble believing they were motivated by idealism, however naive and misguided. I'm happy Chelsea Manning got her sentence commuted. But heroes? Not really seeing it.
  - 9y ago