6 ms·

>obviously deep throat was inside the FBI Which is still a huge moral difference. I would have hoped that HN would be one community that would understand the

by slg 6y ago

>obviously deep throat was inside the FBI Which is still a huge moral difference. I would have hoped that HN would be one community that would understand the difference between a whistleblower leaking data to journalists to expose a crime versus an outsider committing a crime in order to acquire data to leak for their own political gain. But I guess I shouldn't expect that considering many people here think Snowden, Manning, and Assange are all of equal moral standing.

mhh__ 6y ago
The phrase "for their own political gain" describes one of those people much better than the other two
- slg 6y ago
  That was my intent. Snowden and Manning are whistleblowers. Assange is very much not a whistleblower.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    He's a publisher, not the original source, so he can't be a whistleblower (or leaker or whatever). And he seems to be a pompous ass, but let's be honest, people are mad at him because of the particular true things he published. Collateral murder undermined the effort to sell war as a noble goal, and then Podesta's emails hurt the democrats, so now both political parties and their fans feel personally burned by him. He's being railroaded right now, were you aware? Not a US citizen but somehow inexplicably being extradited and charged under the US espionage act.
    - slg 6y ago
      Assange lied about Seth Rich being a source.[1] Assange has said that he had information on the Trump campaign but decided not to publish it[2]. Assange is accused of taking an active role in hacking/cracking.[3] Also you don't have to be a US citizen to be charged for a crime by the US government. Any idea that he is an independent journalist is now gone. He's not a force for radical transparency like he originally billed himself to be. He's only concerned about transparency when it benefits him personally or politically and is happy to lie about or coverup anything else. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-rich-assange.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-ri... [2] - https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293453-assange-wikileaks-trump-info-no-worse-than-him https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/2934... [3] - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/wikileaks-founder-assange-faces-new-accusations-trying-recruit-hackers-conferences-n1232077 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/wikileaks...
      - free_rms 6y ago
        I said up front that he's a pompous ass, I'm not defending his character. > Also you don't have to be a US citizen to be charged for a crime by the US government. You sure about that? I mean, if a non-US citizen commits murder on our shores, fine, charge them, but the espionage act for non-citizens who didn't personally commit any espionage? Really? Shit, even if they did, they're not Americans, you want to extradite every non-American who isn't sufficiently pro-America?
        kickopotomus 6y ago
        I will admit that aiding and abetting is a gray area, but we are all subject to the laws of countries that we decide to travel to or associate with. If it is true that Assange attempted to solicit classified information and did not simply act as a neutral publisher for a whistleblower, then charging him would fall pretty well in line with both the letter and spirit of the espionage act.
        free_rms 6y ago
        If a US citizen blew a whistle on some abuse in Russia or China, would you be in favor of handing them over to be tried by local authorities? How much of this argument relies on "we are the good guys of history, so we get carte blanche and if you disagree you are bad"?
        slg 6y ago
        We don't have extradition treaties with those countries so that hypothetical would never happen. It is the same reason that Snowden isn't facing trial in Russia. Part of being a "good guy" is standing by your word. We have extradition treaties with the UK. Unless there is some belief that the wanted person couldn't get a fair trial in the UK, we would follow the same process that they are putting Assange through.
        cycomanic 6y ago
- Natsu 6y ago
  That phrase seems to apply to Deep Throat (Mark Felt) too, given that many thought he was angling for the job of FBI Director. As if that wasn't enough, Felt ran COINTELPRO, too.
whimsicalism 6y ago
Did the Panama Papers expose a crime? Who decides whether a crime has occurred? I would say that Snowden exposed a crime (perjury) by James Clapper. Manning (IMO) exposed war crimes. Similarly, I think that it was in the interest of the public to report when it was discovered that Trump only paid $750 in taxes (despite not committing a technical crime!) or that Hillary Clinton received some debate questions in advance (again, not a crime!). This standard that Twitter is applying appears to have no clear line of enforcement, nor does the principle you've put forth.
- slg 6y ago
  >Did the Panama Papers expose a crime? Yes, here is the first google result.[1] >Who decides whether a crime has occurred? This is complicated and why there is a preference for whistleblowing to occur through official channels rather than through journalists. However sometimes there is a level of corruption that can't be dealt with any other way besides going public with it. In those instances, it is up to the whistleblower and journalists initially before eventually the court decides. Snowden was good in this regarding by trying to limit what was leaked. Manning did a poor job here. >I would say that Snowden exposed a crime (perjury) by James Clapper. Manning (IMO) exposed war crimes. No disagreement here. Snowden and Manning fit a clear definition of whistleblowers. Assange is the one who is not on the same moral footing as those two. >Similarly, I think that it was in the interest of the public to report when it was discovered that Trump only paid $750 in taxes (despite not committing a technical crime!) or that Hillary Clinton received some debate questions in advance (again, not a crime!). Trump's taxes likely did reveal numerous potential crimes. He reported different numbers to the government and lenders which would likely indicate he committed fraud.[2] He both employed his daughter and paid her as an external consultant which isn't allowed[3]. He regularly claimed things as business expenses in questionable ways.[4] I'm sure there are many others too, those were just the first three I remembered. [1] - https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/first-us-taxpayer-sentenced-to-prison-for-crimes-revealed-by-panama-papers/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/first-us-t... [2] - https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-b... [3] - https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/28/politics/ivanka-trump-donald-trump-tacves/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/28/politics/ivanka-trump-donald-... [4] - https://theintercept.com/2020/09/28/donald-trump-taxes/ https://theintercept.com/2020/09/28/donald-trump-taxes/
jamiequint 6y ago
What crime was committed? The agreement in the article shows that the computer in question became property of the repair shop after 90 days (https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/ComputerRepair-Invoice-Hunter-Biden-2.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=720 https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Comput...)
- cycrutchfield 6y ago
  Do you really believe that BS?
- slg 6y ago
  It is written on a piece of paper so I guess that guarantees that it is both authentic and legally enforceable. Even so, it only mentions the equipment. Would owning the equipment grant the store ownership over all the information on the computer? Does the store gain legal authority to share that information with a third party that is neither a government official nor a journalist like Giuliani?
  - jamiequint 6y ago
    What do you think Occam's razor would say is more likely? That the documents in the NY Post's reporting are fabricated? (While also knowing that it's over 24 hours later and Biden's campaign has yet to deny that the emails are legitimate) or that the documents are authentic. I'd give it at best a 50/50 likelihood of being fake, and would hope that a free and liberal society would demand a lot higher confidence than that before they start wantonly censoring things on the internet.
    - slg 6y ago
      I wasn't saying definitively that the documents are fake. I simply have no idea whether they are authentic or not. These documents originate with Rudy Giuliani who was just revealed to be the target of a Russian disinformation campaign regarding Hunter Biden.[1] I will view anything that is coming from Giuliani with a healthy dose of skepticism until there is some outside confirmation. However the authenticity of the documents isn't even relevant to the overall point. If they are fake, there is a crime of fraud. If they are authentic, it is likely a crime to release this information. There also doesn't appear to be any evidence of a crime committed by either Hunter or Joe Biden. Even if a meeting took place, which no one is able to confirm, that alone isn't a crime. That lack of crime would seemingly eliminate this as an example of whistleblowing. The end result is that it appears that a crime was committed just to make Biden look bad and try to turn the election in Trumps favor. I don't know why Twitter or Facebook need to allow their platforms to be a pawn in that game. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-biden-ukraine-russian-disinformation/2020/10/15/43158900-0ef5-11eb-b1e8-16b59b92b36d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-bi...
meowface 6y ago
Once the information is out there, it's in the public interest for it to be openly available and not censored. No one condoned Russia's intelligence hacking and leaking the DNC/Podesta/Clinton emails, of course, but once they became public knowledge, it'd be ridiculous for a social media company to censor all links to the emails. Similarly, no one condones repair shop owners snooping on customers' laptops for political dirt, but once it's public, the information itself stands alone. Twitter would be right to ban the repair shop owner's account, if he had one, but I don't think they're right to censor any references to the leaked information. It's law enforcement's job to determine if a crime was committed and to prosecute the individual if so.
- jakeogh 6y ago
  We have the timestamps, the dead patriot... and the obvious front company. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjzB9H1F2jE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjzB9H1F2jE God forbid anyone mention the contents... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21319618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21319618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21480268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21480268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21337908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21337908
  - dash2 6y ago
    Your links don't seem very informative, and the Youtube video is 10 minutes long. Could you make your comment more explicit?
    - jakeogh 6y ago
      If you want to know something, wouldn't you spend the time to ask a question about the content? It is exceptionally difficult to tell someone something; it's often counterproductive. If someone is curious, they will look themselves, and ask a question that belies they have read the material. If you cant spare the time to read hot mic words or listen to someone who was a NSA technical director, why would you want to hear what _I_ think about it?
- 6y ago
twirlock 6y ago
> I will always work backwards from the conclusion that my faction is incapable of hypocrisy no matter what

by slg 6y ago

mhh__ 6y ago

The phrase "for their own political gain" describes one of those people much better than the other two

slg 6y ago
That was my intent. Snowden and Manning are whistleblowers. Assange is very much not a whistleblower.
- free_rms 6y ago
  He's a publisher, not the original source, so he can't be a whistleblower (or leaker or whatever). And he seems to be a pompous ass, but let's be honest, people are mad at him because of the particular true things he published. Collateral murder undermined the effort to sell war as a noble goal, and then Podesta's emails hurt the democrats, so now both political parties and their fans feel personally burned by him. He's being railroaded right now, were you aware? Not a US citizen but somehow inexplicably being extradited and charged under the US espionage act.
  - slg 6y ago
    Assange lied about Seth Rich being a source.[1] Assange has said that he had information on the Trump campaign but decided not to publish it[2]. Assange is accused of taking an active role in hacking/cracking.[3] Also you don't have to be a US citizen to be charged for a crime by the US government. Any idea that he is an independent journalist is now gone. He's not a force for radical transparency like he originally billed himself to be. He's only concerned about transparency when it benefits him personally or politically and is happy to lie about or coverup anything else. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-rich-assange.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/mueller-report-seth-ri... [2] - https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293453-assange-wikileaks-trump-info-no-worse-than-him https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/2934... [3] - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/wikileaks-founder-assange-faces-new-accusations-trying-recruit-hackers-conferences-n1232077 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/wikileaks...
    - free_rms 6y ago
      I said up front that he's a pompous ass, I'm not defending his character. > Also you don't have to be a US citizen to be charged for a crime by the US government. You sure about that? I mean, if a non-US citizen commits murder on our shores, fine, charge them, but the espionage act for non-citizens who didn't personally commit any espionage? Really? Shit, even if they did, they're not Americans, you want to extradite every non-American who isn't sufficiently pro-America?
      - kickopotomus 6y ago
        I will admit that aiding and abetting is a gray area, but we are all subject to the laws of countries that we decide to travel to or associate with. If it is true that Assange attempted to solicit classified information and did not simply act as a neutral publisher for a whistleblower, then charging him would fall pretty well in line with both the letter and spirit of the espionage act.
        free_rms 6y ago
        If a US citizen blew a whistle on some abuse in Russia or China, would you be in favor of handing them over to be tried by local authorities? How much of this argument relies on "we are the good guys of history, so we get carte blanche and if you disagree you are bad"?
        slg 6y ago
        We don't have extradition treaties with those countries so that hypothetical would never happen. It is the same reason that Snowden isn't facing trial in Russia. Part of being a "good guy" is standing by your word. We have extradition treaties with the UK. Unless there is some belief that the wanted person couldn't get a fair trial in the UK, we would follow the same process that they are putting Assange through.
        cycomanic 6y ago
Natsu 6y ago
That phrase seems to apply to Deep Throat (Mark Felt) too, given that many thought he was angling for the job of FBI Director. As if that wasn't enough, Felt ran COINTELPRO, too.

whimsicalism 6y ago

Did the Panama Papers expose a crime? Who decides whether a crime has occurred? I would say that Snowden exposed a crime (perjury) by James Clapper. Manning (IMO) exposed war crimes. Similarly, I think that it was in the interest of the public to report when it was discovered that Trump only paid $750 in taxes (despite not committing a technical crime!) or that Hillary Clinton received some debate questions in advance (again, not a crime!). This standard that Twitter is applying appears to have no clear line of enforcement, nor does the principle you've put forth.

slg 6y ago
>Did the Panama Papers expose a crime? Yes, here is the first google result.[1] >Who decides whether a crime has occurred? This is complicated and why there is a preference for whistleblowing to occur through official channels rather than through journalists. However sometimes there is a level of corruption that can't be dealt with any other way besides going public with it. In those instances, it is up to the whistleblower and journalists initially before eventually the court decides. Snowden was good in this regarding by trying to limit what was leaked. Manning did a poor job here. >I would say that Snowden exposed a crime (perjury) by James Clapper. Manning (IMO) exposed war crimes. No disagreement here. Snowden and Manning fit a clear definition of whistleblowers. Assange is the one who is not on the same moral footing as those two. >Similarly, I think that it was in the interest of the public to report when it was discovered that Trump only paid $750 in taxes (despite not committing a technical crime!) or that Hillary Clinton received some debate questions in advance (again, not a crime!). Trump's taxes likely did reveal numerous potential crimes. He reported different numbers to the government and lenders which would likely indicate he committed fraud.[2] He both employed his daughter and paid her as an external consultant which isn't allowed[3]. He regularly claimed things as business expenses in questionable ways.[4] I'm sure there are many others too, those were just the first three I remembered. [1] - https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/first-us-taxpayer-sentenced-to-prison-for-crimes-revealed-by-panama-papers/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/first-us-t... [2] - https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-b... [3] - https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/28/politics/ivanka-trump-donald-trump-tacves/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/28/politics/ivanka-trump-donald-... [4] - https://theintercept.com/2020/09/28/donald-trump-taxes/ https://theintercept.com/2020/09/28/donald-trump-taxes/

jamiequint 6y ago

What crime was committed? The agreement in the article shows that the computer in question became property of the repair shop after 90 days (https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/ComputerRepair-Invoice-Hunter-Biden-2.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=720 https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Comput...)

cycrutchfield 6y ago
Do you really believe that BS?
slg 6y ago
It is written on a piece of paper so I guess that guarantees that it is both authentic and legally enforceable. Even so, it only mentions the equipment. Would owning the equipment grant the store ownership over all the information on the computer? Does the store gain legal authority to share that information with a third party that is neither a government official nor a journalist like Giuliani?
- jamiequint 6y ago
  What do you think Occam's razor would say is more likely? That the documents in the NY Post's reporting are fabricated? (While also knowing that it's over 24 hours later and Biden's campaign has yet to deny that the emails are legitimate) or that the documents are authentic. I'd give it at best a 50/50 likelihood of being fake, and would hope that a free and liberal society would demand a lot higher confidence than that before they start wantonly censoring things on the internet.
  - slg 6y ago
    I wasn't saying definitively that the documents are fake. I simply have no idea whether they are authentic or not. These documents originate with Rudy Giuliani who was just revealed to be the target of a Russian disinformation campaign regarding Hunter Biden.[1] I will view anything that is coming from Giuliani with a healthy dose of skepticism until there is some outside confirmation. However the authenticity of the documents isn't even relevant to the overall point. If they are fake, there is a crime of fraud. If they are authentic, it is likely a crime to release this information. There also doesn't appear to be any evidence of a crime committed by either Hunter or Joe Biden. Even if a meeting took place, which no one is able to confirm, that alone isn't a crime. That lack of crime would seemingly eliminate this as an example of whistleblowing. The end result is that it appears that a crime was committed just to make Biden look bad and try to turn the election in Trumps favor. I don't know why Twitter or Facebook need to allow their platforms to be a pawn in that game. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-biden-ukraine-russian-disinformation/2020/10/15/43158900-0ef5-11eb-b1e8-16b59b92b36d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-bi...

meowface 6y ago

Once the information is out there, it's in the public interest for it to be openly available and not censored. No one condoned Russia's intelligence hacking and leaking the DNC/Podesta/Clinton emails, of course, but once they became public knowledge, it'd be ridiculous for a social media company to censor all links to the emails. Similarly, no one condones repair shop owners snooping on customers' laptops for political dirt, but once it's public, the information itself stands alone. Twitter would be right to ban the repair shop owner's account, if he had one, but I don't think they're right to censor any references to the leaked information. It's law enforcement's job to determine if a crime was committed and to prosecute the individual if so.

jakeogh 6y ago
We have the timestamps, the dead patriot... and the obvious front company. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjzB9H1F2jE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjzB9H1F2jE God forbid anyone mention the contents... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21319618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21319618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21480268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21480268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21337908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21337908
- dash2 6y ago
  Your links don't seem very informative, and the Youtube video is 10 minutes long. Could you make your comment more explicit?
  - jakeogh 6y ago
    If you want to know something, wouldn't you spend the time to ask a question about the content? It is exceptionally difficult to tell someone something; it's often counterproductive. If someone is curious, they will look themselves, and ask a question that belies they have read the material. If you cant spare the time to read hot mic words or listen to someone who was a NSA technical director, why would you want to hear what _I_ think about it?
6y ago

twirlock 6y ago

> I will always work backwards from the conclusion that my faction is incapable of hypocrisy no matter what